What are your positions on the arguments for God?
Hi all!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...
The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.
I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?
Thank you!
A while ago I made a post in which i made clear that i'm an extreme noob when it comes to philosophy.
While having bought a history of philosophy book, I still have a few questions that I don't see will be answered by myself anytime soon. So to the question; What is the problem with the arguments that attempt to prove God? The kalam, The five ways, fine tuning, moral argument, ...
The reason why I ask is because I cannot differentiate bad philosophy from good philosophy. Neither do I know all of the intricacies of the structure arguments should have. (modus ponens, valid and sound) While there are a whole lot of people pushing these arguments. And there are also a whole lot of people pushing against them. I can't help but feel that the majority of the discussions that happen about these arguments aren't well grounded. And I'm assuming that people here know a fair deal and are able to give me a clear idea of what's wrong.
I would like to suppose that the arguments all try to deal with a deistic or theistic god.
Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist?
Thank you!
Comments (1258)
I do get hung up on what constitutes an ontology (what we say exists) and I prefer to focus on what things do. A good argument for or against God, imo, doesn't just focus on the concept of God and whether it is non-contradictory. Instead, I look for arguments that focus on phenomena that are best explained as an effect of God's action.
Hi Doppy!
In answer to the first question, it's a case-by-case basis. Descartes' proof relied on, among other things, dubious personally testimony (I can conceive of an infinite, perfect being!). Aquinus relied on jumping to conclusions. There aren't actually that many logical proofs of God; they are mostly variants of one another. Hidden circularity is a common trait though.
As for your second question, no. I'm an atheist because I wasn't raised to believe one way or another. My parents were theologically sloppy and wanted me to make up my own mind. Having my own mind, I found it surprising that people entertained the idea with so little apparent reason.
Most believers are taught to believe by their believer parents. Most atheists afaik are not. There's a little movement in between which, in testimonies I've seen, are either due consideration of evidence (both ways) or vulnerability in circumstances. (There is a reason why religions favour the vulnerable. Scientology, for instance, preys heavily on alcoholics, drug addicts, and people with mental problems. In the UK, it was usual to have chaplains as counsellors in prisons.)
Generally I don't think the Bible, theology, or philosophy of religion enter into people's theism or atheism very much.
No. At 14-15 I began thinking for myself about what I was told to believe ... which lead me at 16 to cease believing just because they - tradition - told me to believe. I "came out" as an apostate, then later as an atheist, in a Jesuit high school (after several years of bible study, church history, altar-boy service & Latin) a couple years before I would study the classical "proofs" and apologetics. All those sermons to the choir did was further ground my atheism and even weaponize my profane critiques. But that was decades ago and now I'm not that sort of atheist - much less militant, though quite a bit more radical. Still irreligious though.
Anyway, more to the point of the OP, I find that only a small minority of the non-trivial "proofs" are valid arguments and none, even the best, are sound. None. Also, deist/theist entities are "Ultimate Mysteries", or inexplicable, "as they say", to human reason - they do not explain e.g. "g/G created it" or justify e.g. "g/G commands it" anything. "Mysteries" only beg questions, after all, not answer them. Thus, g/G - deism/theism - says nothing intelligible to metaphysics & ethics or that's explicable in physics & biology.
I was raised in a religious family, and so in my early childhood held unexamined and innocuous-seeming religious views. I never had a reactionary moment in my life where I strongly rebelled against those. Instead, I slowly grew out of them as I aged and learned more about the world. I was in fact surprised in my adolescence to realize that adults sincerely held those views, and didn't merely teach them as metaphorical stories for children.
Basically to me, God was like Santa Claus. Believed as a little kid, then realized he was just a fictional character, but didn’t feel like I was lied to or something, just that I had grown up and learned the difference between fact and fiction. The surprise to me was that other adults seemingly hadn’t.
I didn’t learn anything about actual arguments about God’s existence until I was an adult, and found them all transparently unpersuasive by then. At best, they might sometimes prove some abstract metaphysical thing that bears no resemblance to the fleshed-out character of God from any holy book.
The major problem with any arguments for or against the existence of any gods is that none of them are truly logical.
It is impossible to come to the conclusion that "there is at least one god" OR that "there are no gods"...using logic. In fact, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" OR "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...using logic.
The best anyone can do is to make a guess in either direction. One can do that most easily by flipping a coin.
If you ask me, the earlier god(s) were more realistic in that they didn't contradict facts like the existence of evil, explicable in terms of their caprice and personality flaws. This realism in the nature of divine beings is absent in monotheism by virtue of contradictions that inhere in its conception of what the divine is.
Basically, polytheism, with its multitude of gods, each with its own imperfections, likes and dislikes that bring them into conflict with each other and also humans, is more believable than monotheism with its one god, straining to the breaking point under the heavy burden of having to embody qualities that are diametrically opposite - the monotheistic god must explain, with his lone self, what at one time was simply the struggle between Eirene (goddess of peace) and Ares (god of war).
The religions that preceded the Abrahamic religions were more realistic and thus more plausible.
I can see this. Thanks.
Welcome Doppy!
It's been my observation that there are more angry/resentful atheists than there are reasonable one's. There are many reasons for this, but I have found that this usually stems from the rubrics of religion. comments are a good example of an upbringing gone wrong. As many do, he suffered, and is still suffering from those bad experiences that has contributed to his frustrations over discussions relating to concepts about God.
Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged. For example:
1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.
Of course another way (pragmatically) to approach Philosophical discussion about God is to analogize to existential phenomenon or metaphysical phenomenon. For example, take a look at conscious existence. Consciousness is both physical and metaphysical. Personally, I have yet to find an atheist able to parse or explain the nature of our mental states from say our sensory perceptions in both a materialistic and non-materialistic way. A few examples are:
What method best explains my will to live or die?
What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?
What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?
What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)
What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?
Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?
The lists are endless.
And so some of those metaphysical questions that arise from our cognitive states of Being seem mysterious or unknown. The true nature of their existence is unknown or unknowable, as it were. Yet they somehow exist in our consciousness albeit unexplainable. And they certainly do not have biological significance or survival value as instinct would be all that's needed for same. In a way, one could say they seem to be redundant features of existence.
One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? Or another philosophical way of asking that is, what means or method will provide for the ability to make factual statements about the existence or non-existence of those aforementioned things-in-themselves (?).
The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. Theists often don't see that these are questionable because the argument "proves" what they already "know" to be true.
Wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements/assumptions are used all the time to test theories in physics.
Synthetic a priori judgements don't imply a god.
They imply causation. Hint: explain causation viz conscious existence.
Let me know.
What bad experiences? As I said, I never had a particularly strong break away from religion. I don’t feel angry or bitter about Santa Claus either. That and religion are both things I just casually grew out of without any hubbub.
Quoting 3017amen
I don’t feel frustrated discussing concepts about God. I just feel frustrated when people engage in them the way you do, with incomprehensible non-sequiturs, irrelevant questions calling for long in-depth answers that wouldn’t advance the main topic at all but only waste a ton of time, and then bad-faith reactions to those who wise up to your game and won’t fall for any of that.
Lots of people do lots of things for lots of reasons. Usually it's because they either have seen both society and culture both with and without faith. Or they want you to think or behave a certain way and view them as something elevated above this world and naturally yourself. It's probably 50/50.
The intellectual argument is simple. People want what benefits them here and now and if there is a later, later- and want to be on the winning side. Which alone begets a society of immoral leeches. So. You change things up. Suddenly faith has value. Not being a degenerate suddenly doesn't pay out automatically. It's pretty solid. Say you have a family business and have no heirs. Who do you want to look after it? Someone who thinks it's essentially without value, who you met as a literal nobody and has no reason to believe otherwise and convinces you they truly love the business for what it is, or the first prick who responds to a crap load of dollar signs if the paperwork is in order? Common sense, really.
There's flaws in every system. Decency can be abused and good intent turned into something of greater detriment than ill will. It's not perfect. That's why it is. Get it?
I don't see how they do, nor do I understand what you mean by your question.
Is that another way of saying that you don't understand metaphysics?
You may want to study how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible.
Mmmmm, nice. Then do tell, why you were unable to answer those metaphysical questions (?) I'm now wondering, is it because you can't or is it because you don't understand metaphysics?
How about this, I challenge you to make your case for the non-existence of God!! I say you are scared and will make some sort of ad hominum excuse. Kind of like what politicians do. You know, when they are scared they attack either the process itself or the person. But that's perfectly fine, it's all part of the strategy. Actually, I tdon't think that's anything new under the sun :snicker: .
Accordingly, much like my boxing match withTim Wood and Jorndoe, I predict I will knock you out in round 1 of our spirited debate!!!. And, may even spare you the Muhummad Ali rope-a-dope. Hahaha
I did. Because you asked before. There’s a whole thread about it still on the front page.
I don't understand your point. If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. Consequently, the arguments are only deemed sound by those who already believe in God. There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises.
I'm confused. I thought you threw in the towel over there?
That's why I'm suggesting a one-on-one title fight, just you and me?
Let me know when you're brave enough to take the fight !
In any case, if you think of philosophy as a fight in the first place, you’re doing it wrong. The point is not to “prove” that your preconceived conclusions were right all along and “win” over the other guy, the point is for everyone to share their reasons for thinking as they do and together brainstorm possibilities that accounts for all of those reasons at once.
It is not that it's a "may be" ; it's essential in discovery of novel theories about existence. Kant would basically say it's an innate feature of consciousness. And I would agree.
Think about it a moment. If you didn't have those intellectual abilities from your conscious existence, the discoveries such as the BB would not exist. Your metaphysical sense of wonderment is part of your own consciousness. You wonder about causation.
Quoting Relativist
Aren't there a multitude of controversial theories about existence? Take your own consciousness for example... ?
So, your point is... ?
If you're looking for cigar smoking ego-strokes of your own ideology you're mistaken.
I've laid out numerous concepts and you've essentially folded under pressure. So either you haven't done the training, or you're scared that I might be right.
How about this, you have ample opportunity to prove me wrong.
My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother?
You asked a bunch of irrelevant and poorly phrased questions, and you want to take the fact that I don’t give enough of a shit about you to engage with your nonsense to claim some kind of victory in a fight only you are having.
If you want to “score a point” in some kind of philosophical competition, you have to say something actually new, and it’s up to the other side to determine whether you actually have or not... and they don’t even have to tell you whether you have or not, so you may never know.
I'm missing your point? Are you talking about these questions about the nature of existence:
What method best explains my will to live or die?
What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?
What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?
What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)
What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?
Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?
If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. They are relative to the nature of [your] conscious existence. Accordingly, it's almost as if you have no training or even any willingness, to engage in any debate about them :snicker:
So what you said earlier about an exchange of ideas seems contradictory. In your proposed approach, It seems as though if they are ideas or concepts that do not pose any challenges to you, then you welcome them. On the other hand, if they do, then you simply claim foul and throw in the towel for whatever reason.
Really? Why does America have 'In God we Trust" on their currency? Is that not a source or the tools used for the exchange of economic power?
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
It's because theists keep putting the apostrophe in the wrong place. So damned annoying.
Hahaha. I suppose everyone has their weaknesses' :razz:
What does that have to do with proofs of God's existence?
You're overlooking the obvious. You said arguments for God's existence have no power to convince anyone God exists. Why then were the majority of citizens convinced enough to put " In God We Trust" on their currency? What about national anthems...etc. etc..etc..
You didn't join in the discussion of causation here. A shame, since causation is central to your argument, yet problematic.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
There is a tendency for the arguments to depend on a misguided view of cause; sometimes an implicit reliance on Aristotelian mechanics, sometimes on causal determinism except where it doesn't suit.
But there is also a form of intellectual dishonesty inherent in the very notion of a proof of the existence of god. Few folk, if any, are convinced by the arguments. Folk either believe in god and see the arguments as a confirmation of that belief; or they do not believe, and see the arguments as faulty. Either way, the arguments are post hoc to the belief.
:up:
So... you are suggesting that belief in god derives from the arguments.
I'd bet that a survey of 'mercan Christians would show that the vast majority could not give a competent presentation of even one such argument.
Have you such a survey?
Another issue, which I don't think has been mentioned here, is that existence is treated as a first-order predicate.
My point here is not so much that this is wrong, as that it is far from settled. Hence, the arguments remain contentious.
Hi Banno
Is Aristotelian mechanics Aristotelian and Thomistic metaphysics? I heard that a whole lot of the argumentation about the 5 ways for example are basically just theists defending AT metaphysics.
Thanks!
Thanks! I feel like I need a big book on logic and arguments before I can truly grasp the weight of this.
At the moment it feels like the theist can perhaps justify these questionable assumptions?
I've never been a proponent of the Ontological argument. It's strictly a priori.
Otherwise, majority ruling has the power from logical inference.
The Thomist Five Ways are certainly based on Aristotelian mechanics; Aquinas had no alternative. More recent accounts attempted to reissue the Five Ways in a way consistent with more recent developments in physics.
Quoting Banno
I'm going to bookmark that for a watch later.
Quoting Banno
And they aren't all that successful I suppose? :razz:
No I don't. But certainly would not be opposed to studying that... .
Well, they are certainly not controversial.
I'm being as polite as I can. In my view they are self-serving bullshit. But I won't say that here.
Here's some real data, for what it's worth: the PhilPapers survey of philosophers.
One might assume that these folk have at least some experience with the arguments, yet they remain overwhelmingly unconvinced.
What might we conclude?
Because they’re non-sequiturs. Do you know what that term means? It means they have nothing to do with the topic of conversation. Some of them are not even philosophical questions, but empirical scientific questions that would require an investigation into you personally, and nobody’s going to do that just for a forum conversation.
Why don’t YOU say what you think the answers to those are and why you think they matter, instead of pointlessly baiting others to waste their time then acting victorious when they don’t bite.
Or don’t, because I don’t care either way, because you’re a lost cause.
For most ex-Catholic atheists, it seems, doubt began in grade school or early high school 'bible study' without or, for some, years before reading The Quinque viæ. Good parochial schooling (at least in America) has been a fairly effective inoculation against the catechistic disease. E.g. @Ciceronianus the White & @Frank Apisa can attest to that. Close study of Biblical history, as well as its scriptural contents, or Church history "wasn't such a good idea". Not only Aquinas, but Luther et al too, share a lot of the blame or praise.
Yes you led me here from there! Albeit unintentionally. ;p
I always do keep an eye out there. I just want to expand my horizons and learn more. From a broader subset of people.
Yes this is a big one. I've heard a few things.
Might conclude that the arguments are whack..Which is what most people do. Also seen people say that most "experts" of the arguments are theist. Then I have also seen people say this is due to selection bias.
How do you get the enhanced answers like this? I always only get the main Yes, No or other replies.
Set the "response details" to "fine".
This link may do it for you.
While there, take a look at
One person out of over three thousand thought they had insufficient familiarity with the issue. Compare that to the same response in other questions in the survey. They know what they are talking about. Well over four fifths reject theism; Hence, much less than one fifth accept the arguments for God.
That is, those who are best trained to understand and adjudge the arguments overwhelmingly reject them.
I suppose that arguably those who accept the arguments stop being philosophers to become theologians. One might expect theologians not to be affiliated with a philosophy faculty. Indeed, if you look at the results for unaffiliated respondents, the result better suits @3017amen's position, but only by a couple of percent.
So in so far as you were asking in the OP what the position of philosophers generally is to the arguments, they reject them.
Here I'd just add that the question in the survey is "theism vs atheism", not "do you accept the arguments".
The Thomist formulations of these arguments are certainly bound up in outdated and problematic mechanics/(meta)-physics (and its not just Thomas' take on Aristotle, one of the Ways, iirc the Fourth, is bound up in some extremely bizarre neo-Platonism as well), which will obviously make the arguments difficult to accept, as formulated, for anyone not already inclined towards those frameworks.
But its worth considering the historical context there- at the time Thomas was writing, the non-logical works of Aristotle had only recently been re-introduced to the Latin-speaking world, and were widely viewed as a threat to orthodoxy- they were widely banned and censured. So Thomas was as (or more) concerned with showing that Aristotle could be used to support theism/Christianity, as he was about proving the existence of God. And he was more aware of the shortcomings of his enterprise than many modern apologists appear to be (e.g. Craig), as in the quotes from the Summa I posted in the other thread, he was well aware of the fact that these arguments presupposed faith more than they were able to persuade or induce one who wasn't already sympathetic to their conclusions. They're more rationalizations or reassurances for the faithful, than genuine proofs or demonstrations that can establish something that is seriously in dispute.
Why suppose this definition of atheism rather than the Dawkins scale or a four scale one in which we split atheists into two evidential claims of confidence (gnostic and agnostic)? I'd be careful with supposing this is what every person means by atheist and first consult them personally to specify what they happen to mean by said label as well as their own personal opinions on the matter.
Further, a mirage still exists to the perceiver and perhaps other perceivers as well. Should anyone claim that they are not experiencing anything at all: no. Would they come to find what they've previously experienced as palm trees or pools of water if they kept walking in that direction: no they would find only more sand. So it's real but only in one sense and not in another. . . basically we need rather specific clarification of terms. Such as your definition of god. As well as a clarification of whether you are more of a monist with respect to existence or pluralistic as Meinong was with his jungle.
Quoting 3017amen
Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.
In the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.
Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.
Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.
What books do I buy to learn more about the refutations of these mechanics and the mechanics themselves?
Thanks Banno.
I would imagine you can find a good deal of information on the transition from Aristotelian mechanics to classical mechanics free on the internet without needing to buy books, and virtually anything on the early history of classical mechanics will cover the "refutation" of Aristotelian mechanics (although I'm not sure "refutation" is the best term here- I'd say that Aristotelian physics was more replaced or superseded than strictly "refuted", though being inconsistent with observation was certainly a major part of it so I guess this is mostly semantics). But this is properly more of a physics topic than a philosophy topic so I'm afraid I don't have any specific book recommendations for you (sorry). Play around on Google- try "Aristotelian mechanics" or "Aristotelian mechanics vs. classical mechanics" or something like that.
Welcome aboard! Gee, well, I want to engage in debate and discussion but I'm not sure where to begin with that. I mean it almost seems like a purging of sorts, which is completely fine, however, what is the central point of your argument that are you trying to make?
The only thing that comes across very clearly is you taking exception to stereotyping atheist's. Your socio-political view seem to be a bit rambling. How about taking one of my metaphysical questions and exploring that?
In other words I'm not interested in discussing religion and how it relates to society.
That couldn't be further from the truth. What is it about metaphysics are you struggling with?
Again it seems as though if the questions are inconvenient for your intellect you ignore them and cry foul.
Yeah, for me...except for the fact that mine lead to agnosticism rather than atheism. And it happened a bit later for me. I was about 21.
At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since.
When believing in a doctrine comes to require not only an effort, but one that demands acceptance of unsubstantiated assumptions and the repeated performance of uninspiring ceremonies, it's hard to remain a believer. I'm just saying.
In my opinion, the ceremonies of the Catholic Church and, let's say, the British Royalty...are far from uninspiring. I think they inspire the hell out of people...which is the reason they are used with such effectiveness.
A procession of the Royal Guards or a procession of Cardinals and Bishops causes all sorts of emotions in me...some, admittedly very negative, but some enormously inspiring. A Mass or Requiem written by one of the masters is as moving to me as any other classical piece. The beauty of some cathedrals can move me almost to tears...as can much of religious art.
Those things I hold apart from my feelings about religion itself.
Apparently I’m not the only one who thinks otherwise:
Quoting 180 Proof
I’m not going to bother answering your long list of arbitration questions because it’s an obvious waste of time, and 180 Proof here was more charitable than you deserve in doing so himself.
Perhaps you'd appreciate a more straightforward account of the God Concept. Robert Wright, science writer & philosopher, has written a book --- The Evolution of God --- examining how human ideas about spirits & gods have evolved over millennia. It's not presented as a philosophical argument, but as a historical and psychological account of evolving human moral imagination.
He says that he is writing from a Materialist perspective. But he does not identify as an Atheist. Instead, while he believes that "God" is a "figment of human imagination", he also says, " I don't think that precludes the possibility that as ideas about God have evolved people have moved closer to something that may be the truth about ultimate purpose and ultimate meaning... " That is very close to my own understanding, since I too see signs of Teleology in Evolution --- along with Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of Our Nature, and Michael Shermer, The Moral Arc. The ancient First Cause argument is compatible with my own notion of how our world came to be, but I add some modern scientific information to my Enformationism worldview. :smile:
Robert Wright : . . . has a strictly materialist conception of natural selection; however, he does not deny the possibility of some larger purpose unfolding, that natural selection could itself be the product of design, in the context of teleology.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Wright_(journalist)
The difference between philosophical arguments and mathematical arguments is mathematical truth is demonstrable. Once proven it can't be unproved. Philosophical arguments are not as focused. There is a lot of wiggle room so people can reject these arguments.
The question could be reversed: Arguments for God's [non] existence do not have the power to convince anyone God [does not] exist - only [A]theists accept them. Why bother?
While people strive for objective truth in philosophy, philosophical arguments can be subjectively interpreted.
I made my bones, so to speak, in a Church where the mass was said in Latin. I was a wine-pouring, patin-holding participant in the great Latin rite, and chanted away in that language with the best of them. I refer to the pallid, monotonous, grotesquely banal ceremony and liturgy which replaced it.
Do't read him; he's naughty. The Pope says so.
Perhaps we might all agree on the excellence of the philosophical contemplations of the apostates of the one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church?
The new stuff is dull. I agree. Wholeheartedly. The Latin Mass got lots of heat back in the day, but when changed, it was missed almost immediately.
But a procession of Cardinals and Bishops can be inspiring. That was all I was saying.
Yes we can.
Although...it is funny that I am as agnostic as they come, but when certain people who call themselves "Christians" start to pick on the Catholics...my dander gets up (whatever that means.)
Holy Mother Church gave me a great deal. A love of reading, learning, tradition; a fascination with the Roman Empire, of which it is a kind of ghost; an interest in the ancient pagan religions and philosophers it borrowed from so freely. So, I'm not ungrateful, but haven't been a son for many years.
I don't thing there are any good arguments for God's non-existence. I also don't think beliefs are formed that way. Atheists like me got there by questioning our basis for believing in God, and finding it lacking.
Quoting EnPassant
Sure, but that makes the arguments pretty pointless. I guess they make theists feel better about themselves - but that's pretty superficial.
Sweet bleeding Jesus! I'm not the only one. :sweat:
Quoting Banno
:rofl: :pray:
I don't think a/theists believe or disbelieve on the basis of intellectual machinations - they are post hoc and apologetic, on both sides. The decision for a/theism is more subtle that that.
This thread has made me feel terrific. I'm not alone in my realization that the Church peddled nonsense to me and I accepted it for years...but although I have broken away completely, there still is that regard for some of the "rigmarole" of the institution despite my resentment of it.
Its religious teachings are nonsense...and little more than superstition, despite the fact that many of the teachings attributed to Jesus are as valid as the teachings of any reasonable and moral individual. Although I am a dedicated agnostic, I am still sure that if there are gods (or a single GOD) those entities or that entity will almost certainly be nothing like the caricature venerated and worshiped in Catholicism or Christianity in general.
But like a Jew who realizes the absurdity of "the God of Abraham" yet who still feels cultural and traditional alliance with fellow Jews who are religious ...there is that underlying sense of identity and camaraderie in me with/for certain Catholic sensibilities.
My sister and I were speaking of this earlier this year around Easter (she is an atheist) and we noted that neither of us would feel comfortable with eating meat on Good Friday.
Of all the bizarre things! But neither of us would...and I know honestly it has nothing to do with fear of a god punishing us for disobeying a rule of a church. It is a cultural reaction.
Indeed, social identity runs deep.
Thanks for sharing your stories.
Indeed, ritual runs deep. So on Good Friday I make a point of eating a roast leg and watching Life of Brian.
Yup, I know several ex-Catholics who do that.
I have a Jewish friend who makes a habit of ordering ham on rye in deli's.
I respect his right to do so...and I respect your right to do what you do.
I think it is very difficult to frame theism in general in the context of any religion. Most modern religions have permuted many times over the generations. So much so, it is almost impossible to have philosophical discussions in the context of religious particulars - eg. eating meat.
Karen Armstrong argues that the value of religion is not concerned with whether it is 'true' or 'false'. The real value of religion is that it provides a practical context in which people can practice their faith. After all, religion is as practical as it is theological. It seems to me that modern people have difficulty accepting religion because it is wrapped in so much mythological symbolism. Maybe religion in the future will move on to a more direct expression of revelation.
Oh, but the naughty parts are the best parts. :wink:
Anyway, some 21st century scientists are finding (non-biblical) evidence for Teleology (directed evolution, downward causation) in the emerging complexity of the universe. For them, Evolution is viewed, not as a random flux of atoms, but as a self-directing "cybernetic system", otherwise known as a "complex adaptive system" or a "living organism". :nerd:
Downward Causation : cybernetic evolution by "information selection and control".
From Matter To Life : Living Through Downward Causation by Farnsworth, Ellis, & Jaeger of Santa Fe Institute. A think tank for cutting edge science.
https://www.amazon.com/Matter-Life-Information-Causality/dp/1107150531/ref=sr_1_2?dchild=1&keywords=from+matter+to+life&link_code=qs&qid=1595179211&sourceid=Mozilla-search&sr=8-2&tag=mozilla-20
Worlds Hidden in Plain Sight : The Evolving Idea of Complexity at the Santa Fe Institute
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Hidden-Plain-Sight-Complexity/dp/1947864149/ref=tmm_hrd_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=
Then don't bring up the philosophy of religion or ethics. Sociology goes hand in hand with these.
Quoting 3017amen
It literally didn't post quotes for some reason. I copied what I said but it apparently didn't post the quotes.
Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.
Also, in the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.
Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.
Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.
Most of these questions seem to concern the scientific study of psychology, personal arbitrary convictions that may not possess a "best answer", or concern themselves with problems that metaphysicians who are atheist/theist will possess the same problem with. What exactly are you looking for? Metaphysics/philosophy in general has had a problem with understanding or coming to solutions for each of your listed problems.
Are you talking about epistemology (what method), personal philosophy and introspection (why do I keep living), or psychology/evolutionary biology?
Quoting 3017amen
Again, what are you talking about? Is this about what form of epistemology we can come to know that two people are in love? Are you talking about arbitrary but dictated choices in relationships (one night stand vs. long lasting relationship) which is highly personal? Or the biological indicators of people being in love or starting a relationship (psychology and sociology)?
Quoting 3017amen
Do all things have a cause? Or are there things that in fact violate say the Principle of Sufficient reason? What is causation? Is it Humean or non-Humean? I don't know. . . maybe we should investigate through scientific methodology and metaphysical introspection. Would you mind joining us?
Quoting 3017amen
Are you talking about neurobiology, psychology, or epistemology (scientific methodology)? What do you mean by method and explanation?
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, and. . . it's on you to tell me any of them are meaningful or even possess answers once you have better worded them.
Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? For some reason, you're not the only one (atheist) who can't answer those questions (180 was pivoting on them too LOL).
I guess the most fundamental question remains. One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence?
It seems as though both of you cannot even explain the existence and non-existence of those things in themselves. How does atheism square the circle? LOL
Well, two succinct points:
1. Ethics invokes God form philosophy class 101. I didn't personally design the curriculum.
2. With respect to pragmatics sure, what is the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated. Christian Philosophy, no (NT/Mathew)?
Quoting substantivalism
Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we?
Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer?
Nice. Well there's a start. It could be any of those domains because they cover the nature of existing things, or the reality of nature, however you want to phrase it. The spectrum is broad, from cosmology to the human condition and everything in between. That's germane to the entire concept of a God, no?
With that said, why would you want to live when you can easily choose not to live? Sounds a bit nihilistic or existential, but your Will provides for that option.
Great, thanks again for engaging. Let's talk about love, shall we? Firstly, can we agree that there are elements or phenomena associated with Love that are Metaphysical?
Great, thanks for engaging. Let's look at what Kant said initially, in the form of a three part question.
1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
Quoting substantivalism
Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.
Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..
Well, the sore ass, at least. I represented a sufferer of priestly abuse, though.
For me, it's a kind of nostalgia, largely associated with music, sound, colors, even smells. Listening to the Tantum Ergo being sung, the language--reciting the Credo and the Confiteor, the colors of the vestments, the smell of incense, the ringing of the bells during the Eucharist, the Gregorian Chant. An aesthetic nostalgia, so to speak. If you want you spectacle in your religion, it was hard to beat. I suspect the old pagan rituals were similar.
Then, of course, there's also Tom Lehrer's The Vatican Rag.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pvhYqeGp_Do
Absolutely loved it.
Day before yesterday, (because of a post in another forum) I had occasion to listen to Scott Joplin...and really enjoyed it. Rag is great...even this one.
Philosophy means a love of knowledge. It has been specialized and given its own special terms that I do not understand. I am not a philosopher as many people here are philosophers. I am a pagan who loves knowledge, and when it comes to a belief in a deity, I think we should study all beliefs in deities. When we look at all the different beliefs we can see Christianity is is a combination of beliefs including Egyptian and Persian religions and Hellenism.
I think there is a huge benefit to nature-based gods and have a preference for the Greek gods and goddesses. Back in the day, everyone had a patron god or goddess, including the Hebrews who plagiarized Sumerian stories when they were in UR a former Sumerian city.
There is a theory the people of the God of Abraham came out of Eygpt when Akhenaten and his wife died. Akhenaten attempted to force on everyone, a religion with only one god. Akhenaten did this because his grandfather had ordered a search of the archives for the true God which came up as Ra the sun god. Akhenaten put religion above military concerns and this weakened Egypt and angered people, especially the military. He also put the traditional priest out of business and this frightened people and really angered the priest so when he and his wife died his holy city was razed to the ground and buried forcing his followers to flee. The idea is they entered the land that was once Sumer and researched its archives and blended Akhenaten's notions of one god with Sumerian stories, which we can read in the Torah and Christian Bible.
There is another line to god, threw the Greeks and that is the concept of " logos, reason, the control force of the universe made manifest in speech". This pops up as Jesus being the logos with god from the beginning. This line of to god is knowing god through science and it is the line to god I favor. Our democracy comes from this line but as Christians have done from the beginning they Christianized the good ideas and made them theirs. This politicization of God and tying it to patriotism is seriously problematic! Our democracy has been perverted by this and we need to correct this problem.
.
I like your post.
Chardin- evolution is asleep in rocks and minerals, waking in plants and animals, to know self in man.
Christianity was remarkable for it voracious assimilation of, and violent intolerance towards, the ancient pagan religions and philosophical traditions. Once its dominance was assured, of course, its view of pagan philosophy became less hostile.
No, and as I already said, it’s arguing in bad faith to even suggest that you might. That’s not how reasoned discourse works, and your petty schoolyard attempts at shaming others into engagement won’t work here.
Answered? Surely you're joking LOL.
I suggest you read what is writing. At least he's interested in Metaphysical discourse.
Not sure personal attacks helps your case Forrest. Hiding behind ad hominem only substantiates my argument that your so-called belief system has way too many holes LOL.
Why do I even bother replying, everyone else can see how pointless this is and I’m sure as heck not going to get through to you.
If I recall correctly, you were banned recently for ad hominem/personal attacks on other people. Karma is a mysterious thing. (I suggest you take 180's advice and stop trolling.)
Honestly, it's probably because most philosophy is bad philosophy. I believe it takes many years to develop a sense of what good thinking looks like, and to practice it yourself. The vast majority of human opinion is just bullshit, through-and-through.
My experience has led me to believe that it is easier to develop a bullshit-detector than it is to cleanse yourself of bullshit.
Quoting DoppyTheElv
A lot of people pretend and/or fool themselves into believing that they know how to think well, that their opinions are worth listening to, or that there is nothing wrong with bullshitting people.
I think you are absolutely correct to feel this way. Public discourse has little actual content. It is mostly noise produced by folk yakking about things they know nothing about.
1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...
Options [1] and [2] both result in the big bang, at some point...
To think that [2] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at least, there was a chain of events that led to the big bang.
To think that [1] is the answer, in correlation to the super-event, means at most, a species constructed something that led to the big bang.
In the case of [1], there can be other beginnings prior to the big bang; and in the case of [2] there is only one beginning.
Therefore, [2], that nothing resulted in the big bang, is legitimately the stupider guess that reduces the 'wild card' outer-limits, to our science, to the most secluded view.
Therefore, [1], the chain of events is God.
There could be many answers and to suggest that any one of them is correct is ideological from humanity's perspective.
I believe there were other beginnings, but I can't prove this, however I'm not foolish to believe in this...
I apologize if this seems structured poorly but I have suddenly become sick. I will edit this post very soon.
Well looky there another disgruntled atheist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and answer some of these metaphysical questions, I'd love to hear your answers!
:mask:
[quote=John Paul George & Ringo][i]There's nothing you can know that isn't known
Nothing you can see that isn't shown
There's nowhere you can be that isn't where you're meant to be
It's easy[/i][/quote]
:death: :flower:
edit:
More troll bait :shade:
Quoting 3017amen
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/352403 (re: a prolegomena of a prolegomena ... )
:up: Well-stated; I quite like this. A necessary existent or fact (i.e. a being who exists necessarily- whose existence is a "necessary fact") is literal non-sense. Each of the terms is perfectly meaningful on their own, but their conjunction is illicit, a category error, like Chomsky's furiously sleeping green ideas.
"there is an evident absurdity in claiming to demonstrate—or to prove by any a priori arguments—any matter of fact. Nothing is demonstrable unless its contrary implies a contradiction. Nothing that is distinctly conceivable implies a contradiction. Whatever we conceive as existent, we can also conceive as non-existent. So there is no being whose non-existence implies a contradiction."
- Hume, DCNR
And I suppose then that this is why Plantinga and swinburne argue for other kinds of necessity than logical? Causal and factual?
So ultimately just a kind of philosophical/logical sleight of hand, and his argument ultimately fails for the same reason as the traditional ontological argument, by any reasonable measure. You can't get out more than you put in, so if you need to derive an existential statement ("there exists an X" of such-and-such nature) at some point you're going to need to introduce one into your premises.. but no one who doesn't already accept that existential claim is going to accede to such a premise. So the argument is only valid if its question-begging, and invalid when its not, and so cannot be regarded as persuasive by any means. It will only be accepted by those who already accept the conclusion, but then what's the point?
:up:
I still do not understand for certain what you are saying, but it sounds a lot like: If you assert "there are no gods"...no burden of proof arises.
I doubt you would find many logicians who would agree.
If I have misunderstood your position, Enai, I apolgize.
I don't see a problem with evil; it's just a lack of perfection.
With respect to what God 'meant', you may refer to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge relative to causation. Meaning, do all events have a cause?
Interesting. You're getting a little closer, with your definitions about metaphysical abstracts. See, you're learning LOL. Now you have to link it with states of consciousness and metaphysical phenomena. But most atheists are clueless (Daniel Dennett being one). He wrote a big thick book about consciousness and at the end of it he basically said it's still a mystery. What a buffoon and a waste of money. LOL
Do atheists consider him their God?
And what's your point ? There's nothing new under the sun there. The ontological argument is based on formal logic and exclusively a priori. You might want to explore a posteriori kinds of truth's and phenomena.
Otherwise, are mathematical truth's necessary?
I rarely pay attention to a thread that is more than 6 pages and I am not going to look for old threads before I begin one, but I can go to another forum. This one is not very friendly.
180 is just another one of those angry atheists who like to drop the F-bomb. Even Einstein saw the angst:
"The fanatical atheists are like ... who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”
? Albert Einstein
Cause is a metaphysical component of consciousness. It is your sense of wonder. What causes you to worry about wonder/how does that impact your self-awareness compared to lower life forms? Hint: your quality of life depends on it.
Quoting tim wood
How so?
You may want to seek guidance from Pforrest and/or 180 on that one. Forrest was once banned for his anger, and 180 likes to drop F-bombs, so not sure what to tell you there.
Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs.
I'm rather fond of the Stoic conception of God. But I feel no more need to defend that conception in argument than I do to defend my enjoyment of Haydn's concerto for trumpet. Why do you react so strongly against atheism?
Sure. As I've stated elsewhere, early church politics unfortunately excluded Spinoza's wisdom… . It's a shame. Another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist.
With respect to negative emotion and/or 'fanatical opposition' viz atheism, extremism seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Again, Einstein saw what we are seeing, nothing new there nor has anything changed.
Quoting Ciceronianus the White
My reaction is that I treat like cases likely, and different cases differently. Indeed, the OP has inspired your 'rigorous opposition' here.
This means that what you call God is truly named Mother, and the Father, is not God; the opposite.
In essence, God is a "unicorn-scam" though I agree the universe was born.
I can accept the word God but with a strict definition, a theory about the birth of a universe is irrational if thought to be from a lone male(which equates to masturbation). Male and female sex resulting in female-childbirth is a rational hypothesis.
I define God as the universe's mother and father partnership, or I address it directly; perhaps addressing it directly is the smarter alternative.
Thinking God is a male only(equating to masturbation), has led to beliefs about: a superhero God, a Christian God, a pure-loving God, and more non-scientific guesses.
Thinking God is a male and female partnership, is a more scientific guess, leading to beliefs about: super computational power, existences prior to the universe, other simulations, and more scientific guesses.
Thinking of a male-only God is a logical mis-match with creativity; no child is born from a male's penis, no sperm and egg is contained in a female's vagina.
Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?
Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?
Quoting tim wood
Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.
Correct, and neither were you. But you suggested it was a problem. And I said it wasn't.
Quoting tim wood
Not sure hiding behind ad hominem is your best approach.
:snicker:
Quoting Athena
I'll just suggest that 3017amen's passive-aggressive comments and general tone sets an attitude in the thread.
[sub](Then there's tactically shifting the burden of proof; implicitly (i.e. in a hidden fashion) challenge others with the diallelus (or similar, other philosophical conundrums may also take the role), then go "Aha, God"; go for lengthy complex (occasionally obscure) metaphysicalizing, then go "Aha" when others don't take the bait; a bit of intimidation and loaded/exaggerated/condescending verbiage here and there can also help to give an impression of a secure position; ...)[/sub]
Sometimes commenters call for angry responses. *shrug* Nothing new I guess, just check some of the threads touching on contemporary politics for example. :)
Hey Johndoe! Aren't you the same guy who was wrong about challenging me over the fact most all domain's of philosophy invoking God?
If I recall, wasn't it you being initially adversarial... ( I'll find it and post it if you like)?
Open mouth insert foot?
No worries. I know it can be frustrating at times. I'll let you ponder my last post to you, and if you're so inclined to parse my comments, feel free to provide some import. Otherwise, it looks like another 'I'm crying foul' response from you. :grin:
do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it?
— tim wood
Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?
Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?
The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.
— tim wood
Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.
Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.
Does that not compute for you?
Be well Timmy!
No offense taken, but I'm genuinely confused how you got the impression I was talking about burden of proof or the claim that there are no gods. I was talking about the notion of a "necessary fact", a "necessary being", or a being that "exists necessarily" (as in the "ontological argument" for the existence of God)- logical necessity doesn't attach to facts, beings, or existence, and so these phrases are category errors, like Chomsky's furiously sleeping green ideas.
But certainly in most contexts burden of proof applies to any claim, positive or negative, and so asserting that no gods exist carries a burden of proof like any other assertion. But like I said, I wasn't talking about burden of proof, but about the incoherence of a certain class of claims and arguments about God (the "ontological argument" and its variations, and this terminology about "necessary" beings/existence/facts)
Yep. That's how burden of proof works in most contexts, though there are obviously some exceptions where burden of proof is stipulated to rest on one side rather than the other- so, in a criminal legal proceeding (where the burden rests with the prosecution), or certain debate setups. But in the context of a discussion board like this, burden of proof is neutral, and so applies to any claim or position, positive or negative, theistic or atheistic or otherwise. And so the popular canard that "the burden of proof rests on theism" is only partially true- the burden of proof rests on theism... when theistic claims are made. When other sorts of claims are made (atheistic ones, for instance), the burden of proof rests on those claims as well. The good news is, atheistic claims can much more easily meet this burden, since they tend to have the benefit of the weight of the evidence in their favor (unlike theistic claims).
You like to argue with words you've put in my mouth rather than with those I actually use. Troll is as troll does, I guess. TAKE YOUR MEDS. :shade:
Discovering what caused the big bang is improbable, but by no means is that non-existent.
Proposing that the big bang didn't just pop up, and that something led to it's being, is by no means unreasonable.
Therefore, you have no means to reduce my reasonable and rational guess to faithfulness.
The big bang "just popping up" is stage 2 without stage 1 logic. Hypothesises of stage 1, are again, not faithfulness, but reasonable and rational; there is at least some illusion element if the super-event did "just pop up."
I find it sillier when posters here suggest that the big bang came from nothing, because that's a jump from void (this jump requires an explanation; and if we can't explain that, it doesn't make our guesswork stupid; just unverifiable).
Claiming that exact void is all that was before the big bang, is hypocritical if we're listening to your proposal; that's exactly the same as saying the Christian God created the universe, but there is no creativity attached (to the character of the void).
There's a lot missing from our understanding of how the universe began; the big bang theory is water-tight, but on earlier times humans are inept.
No, a) and b), only.
As long as you're not responding with, "because we (a tiny spec in the grand cosmos) can't find evidence for, nor understand what happened before the big bang, it can only be nothing, or it can't be" I'm happy to discuss or debate this.
I suppose being a troll is better than you dropping the F-bomb. Hey looky there, your character score is improving LOL
You haven't defined what a god is so I can't specify whether it doesn't exist, it's improbable, or the arguments for it are lacking. At this point i'm an ignostic.
Quoting 3017amen
You gave questions that concern whether we are talking about our ability to know them (epistemology), our psychology, or our social connections which go into influence/form said abilities/ideas. You are doing what you seem to do best and dodge any of my questions aimed at specifying/clarifying the discussion. This is a rather dishonest move on your part and perhaps it is inherent in who you are.
Quoting 3017amen
You also haven't honestly answered any of my clarifying questions and have merely dodged so that we cannot have a legitimate discussion. Can you even define physicalism?
Quoting 3017amen
Okay, if I recall the golden rule came from certain eastern philosophies starkly pre-dating christianity. Also, you didn't seem to get a good balance of perspectives from you philosophy 101 course.
Quoting 3017amen
Please try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it.
Quoting 3017amen
Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies.
Quoting 3017amen
You haven't defined what a god is and in the process display its coherency, reality, as well as possibly even worship ability. Are you committing me to a semantics game of, "things exist and those are god." Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing.
You have to define a WILL coherently. Is a loosely defined soul or is just your inner conscious thoughts or does it include unconscious ones as well?
Easily? Choosing not to live isn't easy it compromises all of my desires or learned experiences as well as future goals I possess. There are relationships I've created I do not desire to leave and there are experiences or actions I still wish to undertake. Are you contemplating suicide? 1-800-273-8255
Quoting 3017amen
There are experiences we possess and biological reasons that have linkages too said experiences. Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? Like I said, a mirage still exists it's just the interpretation of said phenomenon that people get wrong. Also you're using a word, "metaphysical", that i'm not sure you understand how to use.
Quoting 3017amen
Are there causes for everything? First, define CAUSATION. Here's a start given you seem to not want to indulge in the metaphysics/physics relating to the concept.
Quoting 3017amen
Define concrete. Why does it confer any biological advantages? Do you have scientific/philosophical evidence/reasons to substantiate such a claim?
Atheism is the either an admittance of the non-existence of a god (WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED) or the lack of belief in one similar to how others use agnosticism though such a defined (agnostic) atheist perhaps wouldn't claim it's impossible to know such a thing exists. GIVEN YOU HAVE DEFINED IT!
There are things that exist in reality and are separate from you. That's the most that I require in terms of substance metaphysics and from here perhaps we could interest ourselves in what things are emergent from other things or live in non-reductive states (investigate the nature of said entities). I'm unsure if this is neutral monism, materialism/physicalism, or an objective idealism but this is my loose perspective. Though, many parts (a huge number of them) largely correlate with extensively physical properties or relations in our world (however you define physical). Feel free to tell me when you can use your mind to defy our experience of being rooted to the ground by the phenomenon of gravitation (even objective idealism wouldn't do this but you get my point).
Quoting Pfhorrest
Has he/she done this is other threads and in past engagements? Is he/she a troll that shouldn't be feed or is he/she merely a person with rather difficult social skills.
Recently (past week or two?) they've been doing this to me and 180 Proof in at least two or three threads here. I haven't had any noted problem with them before that. Maybe just having a hard time with the COVID and all.
Perhaps, thank you for the response and possible clarification.
As a fellow ignostic I appreciate that you're trying to engage with @3017amen, but I doubt you'll achieve much. These folks are locked into their positions, and by asking them to give clear definitions to the words "God" and "existence" you are basically asking them to abandon everything they believe.
I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.
Quoting substantivalism
Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away.
Quoting substantivalism
You mean materialism?
Quoting substantivalism
Are you suggesting that Eastern philosophy had mutually excluded Christian philosophy? Accordingly, the irony is, I would think having a 'good balance' would preclude your desire to dichotomize them. Perhaps a remedial course is appropriate here. LOL
Quoting substantivalism
I'm not exactly sure, but let me try. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. Does that square with your understanding?
Quoting substantivalism
That's a shame, Kant and Schopenhauer are very influential in there metaphysical theories. You are at a great disadvantage in this debate. You will be tested. Can you handle it, or will you cry foul, that will become the question.
Quoting substantivalism
I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework.
Quoting substantivalism
The Will is metaphysical in nature. Do you understand metaphysics? You know, kind of like the hard problem of consciousness. Atheist like to use the word qualia which by definition is appropriate here. Make sense?
Quoting substantivalism
Think about the nature of what it means to have goals & desires. Are they metaphysical features of conscious existence and self-awareness that higher forms of life possess? In other words, who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide? That makes no sense.
Quoting substantivalism
Sure. What is love? Physical, metaphysical or both?
Let me repost my causation questions to you. You didn't even attempt an answer:
1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
I'm not following your logic. here's what I asked you:
Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.
Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..
The feeling of the color red, music, mathematical ability, etc. confer little if any biological advantages. Get it? For example, would running gravitational calcs that explain the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle?
I guess ignostic would usually best describe my true position but having people call me an atheist is easier as well as more well known. Most of us are ignostic until the term (god) is defined.
In some ways ignosticism is even more threatening to theists than atheism - it negates all the counter arguments that you cannot prove that God does not exist.
i.e. there is no burden of proof if the question is incoherent. God must not exist if God is definitionally incoherent. The only "proof" comes about from demonstrating this incoherence.
Do I understand you correctly?
Quoting Enai De A Lukal
:up:
Define god. Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date.
Quoting 3017amen
Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective?
Quoting 3017amen
Materialism is a much older and somewhat outdated term that is usually seen as synonymous with modern day philosophical approaches to defining physicalism. Materialism implies to me somewhat of an ancient outdated physics at attempting to understand the world through basic collisional mechanics (a la descarte). An ontology that most physicists definitely probably don't hold onto and have added onto their ontology many more entities those in previous philosophical traditions of materialism would have scoffed at. Again, DEFINE PHYSICALISM? You do it.
Quoting 3017amen
No, just that literally historically it came before it. They can have or possess overlapping features that perhaps were similar in many ways but different in others.
Quoting 3017amen
Somewhat, given all these problems have actual solutions to be investigated and we aren't just indulging in semantic games or problems best dwelt with by meta-metaphysics (something which is, not a joke, exists).
Quoting 3017amen
Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems.
Quoting 3017amen
I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD.
Quoting 3017amen
Atheist. . . you mean most philosophers who care to actually discuss the topic use that term. DEFINE the WILL. Nothing is metaphysical (substance wise) there are things that are studied by metaphysicians and perhaps (under certain definitions of said disciplines) not studied by them. Is the study of metaphysics itself doing metaphysics?
Quoting 3017amen
"Who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. . ." If you designed the world perhaps that may be how it turned out but this is reality. . . the actual world. . . and it does contain things which act out being conscious as well as possess these desires/goals which themselves can be seen as highly complicated assemblages of instinctual effects but also past experiences, our self-awareness, our understanding of more complex concepts, etc. All of which i'm waiting for you say contradict evolution, physics, chemistry, our understanding of psychology, sociology, etc. Differences in terms of descriptions rather than ontology.
Thank you for baiting me with further vaguely put together statements. "Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide?" Never claimed this was an all encompassing reason for not committing suicide nor is it sufficient/necessary for every person but that these probably do go into it. Logically if you didn't want to die (desire) and focusing psychologically on future goals was the ONLY way you didn't kill yourself then it would be the action that person would undertake objectively to not commit suicide. You need to always specify at least (simplified down) a goal together with desires with most actions as you usually do something to attain something else you instinctually, consciously, or un-consciously hope to attain.
Why do you want me to commit suicide so badly?
Quoting 3017amen
I see you are now ignorant of metaphysics as you keep using metaphysics as if it's a substance rather than just talk about substance metaphysics. Where do emergent phenomenon or reductive substances fit into your perspective?
1. It could be true and could be false. . . IF YOU DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSE. Until you define it I don't even know whether it's probable, improbable, logically contradictory, or likewise coherent. What is this causation you keep talking about OR GOD WHAT IS GOD HERE?
2. Intuition and past experiences. Many PHILOSOPHERS have used the idea that we see one experience always lead to another together with concrete solid waking experiences enforce perhaps a casual intuition. Whether this always extends (the hole argument in general relativity and certain interpretation of quantum mechanics) is a different unanswered question DEPENDING WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSATION.
3. Is it impossible to form in a mind?
Quoting 3017amen
It doesn't matter if people who are physicalists (YOU NEED TO DEFINE THIS) have an explanation for how it arises here but that when you say it "nor is it something that confers any biological advantages" you need to support this claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to form given our understanding of say chemistry, neurobiology, physics, psychology, evolution, etc. Also the argument,
1. This feature confers immediately clear no biological advantage.
Doesn't lead to,
2. Therefore it couldn't have formed biologically.
Natural selection and survival of the fittest in evolutionary theory really only care about whether the animal survives or not in its environment. Even a reasonably over weight person in a tall building programming is surviving right now and thusly fit for his environment. Though, why CRITICAL thinking skills wouldn't be biologically/selectively preferred is up to you to support. Also, cave men weren't trying to do gravitational calculus but the critical thinking skills they used in their day to day lives to survive were latter used in one form or an updated way to formulate gravitational calculus. The thinking skills lead to calculus not the other way around otherwise you're inserting intended purpose where there doesn't seem to be any. It starts as some animals having shown learning skills in constructing tools which provide better outcomes in terms of getting food. This then leads to perhaps as some point a rudimentary understanding of how plants grow leading to agriculture then sedentary lifestyles then LESS of a focus on surviving and putting said CRITICAL thinking skills to working on issues or problems you see as having no biological advantage.
Don't tell me what "seems" to not be material when you haven't really mentioned a definition of physicalism/materialism nor have YOU mentioned, to be discussed, supervenient/non-reductive forms of physicalism.
It basically stops them from seemingly always trying to prove they can see into your mind before you even open your mouth.
I'd say less that burden of proof doesn't apply, and more that it may take different forms depending on the nature of the claim in question. So certainly, saying/showing how a given claim is incoherent would meet ones burden for rejecting or disputing that claim (one could hardly provide empirical counter-evidence against a genuinely incoherent claim- what would evidence for or against even look like if the claim is truly incoherent?), whereas if the claim in question was a coherent/well-formed factual claim, then some sort of empirical contrary evidence would probably be required.
And the bottom line about burden of proof is that its a procedural principle, a convention, so there isn't really any fact of the matter there, the burden of proof in a given context just is what the participants agree that it is. And lacking explicit specification to contrary, its usually assumed burden of proof is neutral and so applies equally to all participants and any claims/arguments they may make, regardless of their content or whether they are positive or negative claims, and so on.
We must be doing something right then ...
[quote=Gilles Deleuze][i]Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful.[/quote]
And I concur as I've pointed out here.
'Adieu' if you must go (please take a few trolls with you).
:death: :flower:
My proposition is only that there was stage prior to the bigness, and the bang, of the the big bang; and your proposition is that the big bang, got big, and banged, randomly(what is this?)
My guess is that during this 'preparation stage' was the perfect male, who hunted for the perfect female, and their relationship resulted in the big bang.
I don't feel stupid for suggesting this, I feel inept.
My proposition is understandable, based on the fact that things don't just get big, and bang, from nothing (and if they do, there is at least a part missing from the big bang theory; how it got to stage 2(big, bang)).
We may be inept to answer this question; this may be a one-off. We (humanity) are tiny in comparison to the universe, not to mention what could be existence.
Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes?
Quoting substantivalism
Are you referring to medical science or psychology?
Quoting substantivalism
Physicalism must accept that panpsychism is true. Meaning, in panpsychism, the belief is that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, however, it remains just another belief system. Just like your belief system.
Quoting substantivalism
No exceptions taken.
Quoting substantivalism
There is no reason not to is there?
Quoting substantivalism
I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.
Alternatively, some link God to causation. Accordingly, I would take no exceptions to that first-cause view of cosmology. For all we know, eternity and turtles were caused too :snicker: . There exists something; not nothing. Nevertheless, you must know something that we don't know, so please feel free to share LOL
Quoting substantivalism
Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical?
Quoting substantivalism
It contradicts Darwinism. There are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). And your point?
Quoting substantivalism
Why would this become a need, so that it precludes suicide? Seems like the logic of metaphysical necessity (your desires/goals) is causing you to stay alive then, no?
Quoting substantivalism
You may want to study Kant and Schopenhauer. (You've got to do the training to debate with me.) But to answer your question succinctly, emergence seems to work just fine with lower life forms, but not higher levels of conscious existence and self-awareness.
Quoting substantivalism
I'll enumerate them in a respective fashion:
1. Well then, there appears to be mystery to your physical existence, no? Otherwise, how can something be both true and false at the same time :snicker:
2. But that doesn't explain how your sense of wonderment works.
3.Not sure that's really a coherent answer, can you restate that please?
Quoting substantivalism
Sure. As I've mentioned previously, how does knowing the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle, when I have the ability to dodge falling objects without such knowledge? How does musical theory provide for survival of the fittest, how does your Will (desire /goals) provide for natural selection when instinct is all that's needed for existence, the feelings of Love are not required for survival either...etc.,etc. etc..
In consciousness, those metaphysical languages or phenomena are all quite perplexing, no?
LOL
No some parts of consciousness may be non-reductive to their physical counterparts or be entirely different substances (or have different ontological grounding, sufficient reasoning, intrinsic properties, etc). Metaphysical attributes of god? What attributes, maybe you could DEFINE IT.
Quoting 3017amen
Both.
Quoting 3017amen
Then it isn't physicalism it's panpscychism. Also, define what physicalism is.
Quoting 3017amen
What?
Quoting 3017amen
I'm actually an ignostic in this discussion now because you haven't defined god. DEFINE GOD.
I don't need to know the mind of god only the mind and concepts used by a particular theist trying to argue for a particular ontological entity.
You mean occasionalism? With respect to god being causative. Know your terms.
Something can't come from nothing therefore there was always something.
Quoting 3017amen
Does it exist in reality and or is an activity executed by entities that exist? Then it's STUDIED by metaphysicians/physicists. It isn't just metaphysical?
Quoting 3017amen
Not every feature of an animals growth of evolution has to 100% always benefit it. There are little biological advantages to your appendix and perhaps it once did have a use but now it doesn't. Still fully explained by evolution. Remember the critical thinking skills that lead to better survival given sedentary/agricultural life styles later gave rise to these thoughts not the other way around. Stop talking like a stereotypical creationist.
Quoting 3017amen
How would a person who desired to not live and made it their goal continue surviving?
Quoting 3017amen
Prove it. Also it seems you still don't want to discuss substance metaphysics and would rather keep using a discipline to talk about what ontological things exist?
Quoting 3017amen
1. Yes, let's investigate that with scientifc, mathematical, and metaphysical rigor. I never said it was both true and false at the same time I don't know whether it is true or false which isn't equivalent to the positive claim that it is true/false at the same time. This is a claim about my amount of knowledge required to answer the question. . . not an answer to the question.
2. Are asking about wonderment or how we build causal intuitions? Make up your mind and stop gish galloping.
3. Where does the knowledge exist?
Quoting 3017amen
How is instinct all that's needed for existence? Evidence is needed on your part to support this it's a claim about physics, chemistry, psychology, and evolutionary biology of which you don't seem to know much about.
Here's the thing, people who exercise love and those that don't survive making them both fit for their environments. Cave men had no knowledge of calculus but survived and people today become experts in it but also survive so in both scenarios THEY WERE FIT FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Natural selection isn't just bad evolved traits or good ones but also neutral traits that may or may not impact at some time your survival rate. So people without said traits would be said to perhaps evolve just as fit as those with them and good/bad traits could later serve no use.
BUT you forget that you are dodging once more and continue to assert that "evolution -> calculus" when in reality your missing a step "evolution -> critical thinking skills/abstract reasoning -> calculus". Evolution does not preclude at any level that formation of traits or behaviors that may not benefit the organism but also not be detrimental perhaps given they have previously selected traits which assist in the growths of others. Our ancestors ability to create traps or out smart predators is vaguely still the same thinking used for calculus but you continue to assert that critical thinking/abstract thinking serves no survival advantage. Though, to survive in our concrete jungles today you are required to know these thing lest you not get the best jobs available, survival of the fittest at work again.
That would contradict what you said about the metaphysical will to live, no?
With respect to metaphysical attributes of God, sure the cosmological God is mathematically abstract, and the God of consciousness is both material and immaterial. Both of them share metaphysical features of existence.
Quoting substantivalism
I'm intrigued with psychology and cognitive science. What was it again you wish to explore there? I think you were asking about what modern medicine was required to help fight disease and so forth, so I'm not sure how that's germane. Nevertheless, would you care to talk about pathology and the human condition? Seems like that would relate more to the phenomena of human motivation(s).
Quoting substantivalism
A modern form of Materialism, correct? And your point?
Quoting substantivalism
Well, the Christian Bible is a history book. And in that book, God became man, who also had a conscious existence. Does that provide for your definition in real terms?
Quoting substantivalism
Are you sure there was always something? How so?
Quoting substantivalism
Exception taken as noted: It is both. If you wanted to discuss the Will (desire/goals/purpose) within the framework of cognition and cognitive science/psychology now would be a good time :snicker:
Quoting substantivalism
Forgive me, but that sounds like a politician pivoting. Otherwise, it still contradicts Darwinism. It still holds that there are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). You can talk around it, but I suggest rather than deny it, acquiesce to its brute fact. Have you studied existentialism? (Of course you haven't, sorry.)
Quoting substantivalism
They wouldn't. But instinct would preclude it. Get it?
Quoting substantivalism
Sure. Consciousness exists, right? And your point?
Quoting substantivalism
1. Okay, so you are unsure. It proves another point about the mystery of your own existence.
2.Both.
3. In consciousness. Can you explain your consciousness?
Quoting substantivalism
Because lower life forms exist on instinct, emergence, etc. etc.. Not because they are self-aware Beings.
Quoting substantivalism
So are you saying metaphysical phenomena are not required for survival? If so, you need to explain why they exist.
Quoting substantivalism
That would not square with Darwinism. It does however square with post-modernism. And that would suggest subordination of the instinct toward rather the higher reaches of human nature and/or existential angst. And then in turn, leads to consciousness, self-awareness, metaphysics, purpose, will, love, phenomenology, etc. etc.. You know all that human condition kind of stuff :snicker:
It would contradict your abhorrent abuse of a term "metaphysical" which stands for a discipline of study. Why would (AFTER DEFINING WHAT A PHYSICAL THING IS) acknowledging that there are non-reductive physicalist/idealist/neutral monist/pluralistic substances with differing natures than the physical that make up our experiences contradict or come into conflict with scientific/metaphysical analysis? Explain to me the epistemological gap there?
I'm getting tired of your game of semantics as it had been entertained by you. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god.
By "metaphysical" features of existence you mean the nature of what you consider to be physical (You don't know what this is) and what what makes up or give rises to our perceptual experiences are different in some way.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, why would human beings take modern physical medicine to help with psychological/non-physical issues. . . under your perspective.
Quoting 3017amen
No, it's just not what PHILOSOPHERS would designate as physicalism because there is another term for it that distinguishes such a concept from physicalism. . . panpsychism which isn't physicalism. Define what you mean by physicalism and not just not an outdated ontological theory by ancient physicists.
Quoting 3017amen
First the Christian Bible mentions perhaps real locations or real events that occurred but has that intermixed with miracle claims that are wholly unsupported so the veracity of many of its claims is put into suspect.
Also, no. Define god. No cryptic language just a straight forward definition of what god is.
Quoting 3017amen
Because something cannot come from nothing. Unless you have an example of something coming from nothing. . . can scientifically/philosophically demonstrate such a claim? Every experience appears to be linked to other previous experiences or substances and thusly come from something. In fact, please tell me how LOGICALLY something can come from nothing.
Quoting 3017amen
If you want to be a truly respectable philosopher now would be the start to do so. So the will is just the random/determined responses that I have to stimuli or "actions" I perform? Or will you better define the will?
Quoting 3017amen
"no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence" except critical thinking giving the ability to produce our own food or outsmart animals to hunt them more easily. Abstract thinking which follows also which has the ability to correctly structure language and thusly concepts to be relayed between individuals such as what to do on a hunt or how to build shelters, fire, cook, create tools, etc. Which has made the human animal reach the top of the food chain in that intellectual regard. I'm waiting for YOU to tell me HOW these basic aspects that go into forming those things you think are not biologically advantages are themselves also not biologically advantages. In fact at one time yes critical thinking skills/abstract thinking would have been starkly the same as basic survival but as time went on and we developed agriculture/towns which had us form sedentary lifestyles then those thinking skills went in the direction you indicated evolutionarily through our development. This doesn't however contradict evolution and the development of things which aren't biologically advantageous but also aren't disadvantageous also do not contradict evolution. Tell me how it does by first DEFINING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.
I also haven't studied existentialism and you don't seem to have studied evolutionary biology.
Quoting 3017amen
So the psychologically inherent biological features would play into it. . . as would many other things.
Quoting 3017amen
That's not what you replied to I was talking about abuse of the term metaphysics like some person who's spiritual but religious.
Quoting 3017amen
1. It proves that I do not know and maybe you need to get off your ass with physicists/metaphysicists to uncover it.
2. You didn't reply to the first time I gave an extremely simplified explanation of what some philosophers mean by causation (which you are too dull to understand let alone define) and mention wonderment which you need to exactly define and specify.
3. I don't see any knowledge? Where is this knowledge perceptually?
Quoting 3017amen
Just like dogs which also portray in a limited sense what you or I would see as emotions such as longing, boredom, excitement, fear, or even hatred. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-hidden-mind/201211/are-chimpanzees-self-aware
Quoting 3017amen
Perhaps not everything you listed gives an utmost definite benefit but the intellectual concepts (critical thinking, abstract thinking, self-awareness, ect.) that go into forming said concepts, prove to me, those base concepts ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO ARISE BY ANY MEANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, PSYCHOLOGY, OR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WITH LINKS TO REPUTABLE SOURCES.
Also, please shut up about using "metaphysical" as a describing word there are things that may fall under the discipline of metaphysics to study by metaphysicians but there are not things in the world that are purely metaphysical substance wise.
Quoting 3017amen
Actually it does because you do not live in the forest anymore your environmental pressures have changed because the environment you are in is different with differing outcomes depending on your choices from day to day. It's so simple but you don't seem to be able to understand that. Why would it not square with darwinism. . . wait. . . how about you DEFINE DARWINISM first. Are you using modern day evolutionary theory or are you just a creationist who is using a bastardized version of a summary that Darwin wrote about his theory some hundred years ago?
Like i've said before "evolution -> to trait with critical thinking/abstract thoughts -> better survival -> knowledge of agriculture -> sedentary lifestyles -> using the same beneficial traits to form other concepts such as mathematics/philosophy/language advancement/etc." You cannot seem to grasp these concepts either indicating you are a troll, intellectually can't grasp a different version of your evolution, or you are an active hypocrite.
I need an external eye to look at how i'm going with this guy 3017amen. Would give me pointers on how i'm doing?
:up: sort of the fundamental flaw common to all these arguments- a conclusion in search of premises, rather than the other way around.
Timmy!
Not to digress too terribly on such a commentary of human nature, but I see a few ironies emerging here relative to that human condition, and the approach to challenging your (and perhaps other atheists) belief systems.
You mentioned history book. In that same history book, ad hominem is certainly nothing new under the sun (OT/wisdom books/Ecclesiastes). Meaning, in NT, as many of us know, the Scribes and Pharisees often felt uncomfortable (and threatened of course) for reasons we are all too familiar with. Sad, but worth noting in this case. Actually, it is quite existential if you care to ponder those implications.
The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... .
In my personal observation or experience, I do notice that during spirited debates about EOG, hiding behind ad hominem seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It may provide for a false sense of empowerment, not sure. In any case, fast-forwarding, that human dynamic usually translates into political pivoting first (avoiding answering tough questions), then when pressed or left without options, relegating the subject to either attacking the process or personal ad hominem.
But it's all good, like I say, nothing new under the sun there.
Define god. Also, what do I believe in all knowing telepath?
Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea.
(And, if anything, he personally preferred the label religious nonbeliever or agnostic about himself, possibly aligned with Spinoza, and with a poetic-mystic reverence for a variety of religious texts.)
Hijacking cherry-picked quotes is misrepresenting him for the occasion, moreso if you're dishing out accusations left-and-right here.
Did we not cover this ground already? I'm not sure if you're on a fishing expedition or a witch hunt, but in any case let me be cordial and repeat: The cosmological God is that which is a mathematical and metaphysical abstract.
As it relates to our recent discussion about conscious existence, the ontological God is consciousness (via the Christian God/Jesus) which is once again, part of a metaphysical phenomena.
No exceptions taken. And your point? BTW, I hate to offer this observation or admonishment, but you had been sadly misguided about God not being inclusive of most philosophy, so you've got your work cut out for you to reestablish credibility... :snicker: In other words, what other fanatical misrepresentations are you willing to regurgitate?
So it's just as ontologically irrelevant to everyday experience just as a mirage is not a bunch of palm trees and a pool of water. (If you are going to bring up your anti-materiality note that the personal experience of a mirage is completely different than that of a pool of water with palm trees)
"Ontological god is consciousness" so you are not calling consciousness, consciousness, but calling it god. So you are playing a semantics game.
Also stop using the word metaphysical as a representation of substances there already exist words for that it's a word that represents a discipline of study. You can study music in music theory but nothing is made of music theory.
Why did you quote mine?
Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence.
With respect to mind and matter, is music theory metaphysical? We've already ruled out that it's not required for Darwinian survival. So please share your thoughts :chin:
Not following you on that one.
Think of it this way; red is red (God is red). Or alternatively, in cosmology, God is mathematics.
Yes but it's not a substance it's a discipline of study. That may or may not include scientific methodology or the natural sciences which DEPEND on our personal or shared experiences for pragmatic value.
Quoting 3017amen
It may not be required for survival but this doesn't mean it couldn't have arisen by traits that were naturally selected including our ability to vocalize and communicate rather complex ideas to other members of our species. You only need to add in bits of creativity and formulate the same evolutionary helpful vocalizations into forms our ancestors or later viewed as appealing to their ears. Our parents needed to survive but not every single thing they thought, did, or performed needed to some how lead to their utmost survival or contribute to it only the net outcome of their choices needed lead to their survival. Also define what modern evolutionary theory is. You haven't shown to me that you understand evolutionary theory is so define it.
There is no such thing as macro versus micro evolution there is only evolution period.
Yes, so if call a tree a truck then a truck is a tree and vice versa. Basically you are fucking language raw if I may put in less appealing or rather disgusting terminology. You're using linguistic shorthand to describe the same exact concepts using a new word and adding nothing to the discussion.
You abuse peoples quotes and don't seem to justify it? :chin:
So consciousness (in part Metaphysics) is not real?
Quoting substantivalism
I'm at a loss over your point. How does that address the nature of music theory, and Darwinian survival value.? Again, is music theory metaphysical?
You're confusing a discussion I had with Jorndoe awhile back on another thread. You may want to bow out of the discussion there.
Really?
Tree=plant
Cosmological God=mathematics
Ontological God=the color red.
And your point?
Actually, with respect to Ontology/Epistemology and logic, I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red. Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red. And so in logic, it becomes red and not red, P and not-P (principle of Vagueness/Bivalence) which in turn transcends the laws of excluded middle. And so in Ontology, the analogy would be that your consciousness and subconsciousness working together also violates such formal laws of non-contradiction. Meaning, you yourself, and your conscious existence, are not purely of a logical nature.
No, that metaphysics may or may not encompass what was called natural philosophy but we call today the sciences including physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Consciousness or our experiences and the regularities we attribute to it or discover can be accessed as well as studied under a scientific methodology. Scientific methodology is in its purest form only an epistemology and (in a perfect world) wouldn't have you make an ontological decision between an objective idealism or physicalism because it's a pragmatic epistemology.
Quoting 3017amen
You seem too possess a creationist mind set so i'm treating you as such. Watch the video it completely debunks your excess-ant point that every single thing I do, think, or am must have the utmost 100% ability to continue my survival or contribute to it when in fact evolution allows for neutral traits/mutations to arise including higher order ones such as music theory. But you also can't have music without traits such as language/articulated sounds and language/articulated sounds provide us the ability to communicate with each other complex ideas which can definitely assist in better survival through coordination.
You fucking dumb ass stop using metaphysical as if you are talking about substance theory in metaphysics because metaphysics is a discipline not a substance that things are. The philosophy of music perhaps falls under the philosophical discipline of aesthetics.
Quoting 3017amen
Oh you mean you mean you abused someone in other threads, the horror.
Well, if you want to call a first round knock-out being abusive, well, that's your call :snicker:
You seem to be struggling with Metaphysics, this may/may not help you (short easy to understand video):
You're playing a semantics game like calling the universe god and not defining what you mean by god or merely just having the word "god" be a place holder for other terms. Maybe when I say god I mean that chair across from me but that is both useless and meaningless to do, so why are you doing it?
"I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red", what the fuck are you even talking about anymore have you lost your mind?
"Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red." You can avoid your argument for non-classical logic by merely restating that from my vantage point away from an apple with certain laws of physics covering my perception of color I experience a certain specific perception of red wave lengths of color interacting with my eyes and that is different upon closer examination of the apple because of a different nomological state of affairs (they are not the same, being far away from the apple or close up). So you cannot compare them to say A and ~A to obtain a contradiction. It's actually A and B. If you were looking at the apple and it was red from that vantage point but also not red you would have point but that isn't what happened.
Exactly certain things are studied by metaphysicians such as the mind or physical reality but there is nothing that is metaphysical only studied by metaphysicians. So the mind is studied by metaphysicians as is everything else that exists (ontology). So under your viewpoint the physical is also. . . metaphysical. Sloppy and useless as usual.
You keep asking me to define God, and so, am I not telling you what you want to hear? With respect to Ontology and bivalence/vagueness/logic, etc., ask yourself whether your consciousness or subconscious was to blame when you die in a car accident while daydreaming? Was it your consciousness or subconscious driving the car?
Did you not comprehend the video?
Did you. Metaphysics is a discipline that studies the things he mentions in the video. What i've been telling you this whole time.
Is that not what we're doing? I'm confused now.
I'm asking why you only want to seem to discuss language?
Quoting 3017amen
But you also wrote that something is or isn't metaphysical when you really mean't is it something we can study under the discipline of philosophy called metaphysics not that it was actually metaphysical (made of metaphysics)?
Depends on what parts of brain were responsible for correct motor control and what parts were responsible for daydreaming as well as whether you would or could assign the label of conscious/unconscious to certain processes or to others. You are readily conscious of the day dream you are indulging in and those experiences are like a movie that doesn't entirely (or not at all) come from conscious influence but from parts of the brain that you are not in complete conscious control of or the unconscious. Given YOU (amalgamation of conscious/unconscious experiences) were the one in control/non-control of the car then it's YOU who is to blame. YOU are nothing an above your conscious/unconscious processes (whether physical or ideal). If you could find a measure to tell me how in a day dreaming session with neurobiology/chemistry you could quantitatively decide how much of you was consciously responsible for the day dream/motor control and how much of it was background brain processes then we could perhaps assign blame specifically. . . i'll wait for you to get your degree.
It doesn't account for metaphysical phenomena, consciousness, music, mathematical ability, causation, the Will, the illusion of time, etc.. etc., therefore, it is not comprehensive enough. Is it?
Language? You mean phenomenology and metaphysics.
Quoting substantivalism
You mean it's that which transcends physics?
Are you unable to answer the question as to whether it was your subconscious or conscious that was doing the daydreaming while driving, at the same time?
Now you are truly a creationist who doesn't understand that evolutionary theory and cosmology/physics are different scientific disciplines or here you're mixing it up with philosophy. You are also blatantly just asserting without evidence/arguments that consciousness, music, mathematical ability, what we call the will, temporal assumptions, or casual intuitions cannot arise through such a theory.
Causation needs to be defined here. The illusion of time hasn't been touched on you just added it in and haven't defined it. If i recall you just defined the will as our conscious/unconscious processes, right? There are no metaphysical phenomenon only what is studied by metaphysics. Meta-metaphysics is a discipline studying why we do metaphysics or what metaphysics should be considered to be and thusly isn't metaphysics, another discipline not exactly what i'd call a phenomenon. Are you knew to the english language? Physical objects are metaphysical (studied by metaphysicians) and idealist ones are also metaphysical (studied by metaphysicians). . . sooo. . .
Quoting 3017amen
No, I mean the abuse or meaningless grammar you keep using to describe your "god". I wouldn't dare call it or pollute the label of phenomenology by calling it that.
Quoting 3017amen
Metaphysics and physics go hand in hand one doesn't transcend the other as both are required here to reach conclusions about the real world. Metaphysics - arm chair speculation, physics - actually interact with the world.
Quoting 3017amen
I am but are neurobiologists/neuro-chemistry unable? Are you going to jump ahead on me once more and assume that because I don't in particular know (nor do you) you are going to assume it's a philosophical/scientific mystery that will never be resolved or assume basely that therefore your answer (a form of non-classical logic?) is correct? Which fallacy will you commit?
Our words are written left to right when good languages must be completely justified.
There is God, and there 'is not God', and these don't mean what you think they mean (because they are written in our language, we're prone to errors in understanding "simple math") - they are male and female opposites.
"God" and "not God" resulted in the big bang; the word "God" is stupid.
There is possibly a way to define "God" and "not God", but it's nothing like Christianity and is scientific.
The big bang got big and banged somehow...
I certainly don't know how metaphysical phenomena (the nature of conscious existence) can emerge from Darwinian evolutionary, survival of the fittest kinds of logic, can you?
Quoting substantivalism
nulla sed tibi videor esse, cum tua spelling
Quoting substantivalism
It appears that your response is indeed acknowledgement that you're without an appropriate answer to the question LOL
Are you sure? I thought the history of Jesus' existence defined God? Meaning, Jesus had a conscious mind, yet the explanation of which is germane to the mystery associated with existence, even your own existence, no?
Sounds paradoxical, yes?
You should know that a lack of imagination or scientific knowledge on the matter should only subscribe you do at the most a sense of indifference/agnosticism but not that it's literally impossible. . . which requires stronger philosophical argumentation and cannot be ignorant in any sense of any field of science.
Literally, consult actual scientists on this matter who have given time/resources to investigating the relationships between evolutionary theory, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Especially since while you may be perhaps skeptical of the relationship between our experiences and the phenomenon that give rise to our experiences certain relationships are highly well proven to be consistent or reproducible. Such as having interactions with the "physical" brain affect how an individual experiences the world around them even if this relationship truly is merely coincidentally linked rather than purely casual (you haven't told me what this means by you or your position on it, non-humean or humean) or emergent such as in substance dualism.
Quoting 3017amen
So will you take that as evidence that therefore there is no answer or only the answer you desire (can you break this dilemma or mine)? I've talked with theists on these topics and you have said the most and yet haven't said anything at all making all of this a waste of time. I came here to discuss this but you spat in my face until I lost my sense of respect for you.
Quoting 3017amen
No, you're just obscuring the philosophy of religion and theology that has been around for centuries attempting to define a concept that goes along certain lines. You've lumped yourself in the position that god just means "things that exist" or it's equivalent to the "universe" or some personal bit of personal wonderment you call "god" when most people define such a concept to have some relation to an agency different from human beings with specifically defined properties (barring people such as Berkeley but we all lived in the mind of god still perhaps individuated from it in his viewpoint). You've just obscured this constantly for some forty posts and continue to do it when other terminology could be just as usefully applied without said obscuration.
Jesus in christian philosophy/theology is said to either be equivalent to god (triune) or truly a mortal counterpart to him. Whatever the case this is mystery (assuming I even partake in this philosophy) to how JESUS could be both human as well as god. It's a mystery about this particular individual and not about existence in general. Unless you are claiming, like a solipsist, that i'm a god or god himself but just don't know it as well as cannot access higher order abilities associated with such a thing.
A male God, as I have said before, means that universe creation, must have come from his mind and hands when nothing with reproductive capability has, ever, come from our mind and hands. He, as 'not God', must have met a female, as God, and had reproductive sex. Imagine an ancient civilization, who's parts were 'the necessary parts' to form all those elements for the big bang; the ancient civilization had within it the male parts, and the female is what was hunted for. They had sex, boom!
What your stance lacks in strength is due to the missing female and the all-male equation; it even rubs off in your own mind with boring God logic.
You would contend against pseudo-Atheists who are half foolish easily with even a Theist stance...
You wouldn't contend against me with your logic if you continued to talk of an all-male God. Would you? If I said what I said to the others, what would our debate entail?
Are you familiar with mathematical/physicists Paul Davies, John Wheeler, Roger Penrose... ? I hate to drop names, but you might want to study some of their theories relative to physical existence (and metaphysical) and science.
Otherwise, regarding "brains" I think now would be the time to explore cognitive science/psychology relative to consciousness/sub consciousness and how it works, since it appears you are at a loss philosophically. Think about that question regarding how consciousness can do two things at once, then provide your theories. Or, if there is a psychologist that supports whatever view you have, please share.
Quoting substantivalism
You're actually starting see this existential mystery and/or paradox. Jesus had a consciousness just like you. And just like you, your own consciousness is a mystery, to you.
Interesting. Are you suggesting that God has a gender?
Partially. What you mean consciousness can do two things at once? It can only be conscious of experiences and those it isn't are called unconscious. I'm waiting for your explanation of how our brain and all the surgeries that go into fixing people every year don't have any connection to our conscious experience or effect it (that these life saving surgeries are in fact meaningless because they don't get your philosophy?)? You are at a loss scientifically/experientially. . . remember that jumping in front of a bus will get you killed.
Quoting 3017amen
If Jesus was a real person and was human then yes, stupid, he would have a consciousness just like me. Feel free to support that he did really exist, did anything he was claimed to have done in the bible, or was the son of god.
Driving and daydreaming to the point of distraction and accidental death.
Not sure I'm connecting the dots on your logic associated with performing brain surgery.
Quoting substantivalism
Great, there actually might be agreement there. You passed history 101!
I can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? I'm assuming you are greatly detached from reality given your posts and your insistance of the failure of "atheism" or aka science to discover/explain anything.
Quoting 3017amen
So you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."
How do YOU define...define?
It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance.
Are you being jokey/sarcastic, pedantic, or really wondering about the grammatical/language/philosophy that goes into a proper definition? Though, if you have been following the frustrating conversation this person seems to want to not either give up understandable definition of what he means by god or propose a definition which we have words that specifically already describe said concept; consciousness, emotions, wonder, existence, reality, universe, etc. You can call these things god but that doesn't change the concepts its being substituted name wise for.
At the moment a majority Theists argue for a male God; saying the creator was Father without Mother. I, on the other hand, claim that a Father and Mother were involved.
This is not God-ism, I can be an Atheist and have this view; there are plenty Mothers and Fathers around. in fact, I don't know one child, whether conscious or not, who didn't come from opposites.
I am not being a wise-ass...nor am I joking.
I am genuinely interested in the position you are taking (I suspect I oppose it), but just as you have concerns with what a person means when using the word "god" in one of these discussions, I have concerns about what a person means when using the word "define" in a comment like "define god."
Many people might suggest using the "definition" given in a dictionary, but dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used.
So...really, what do YOU mean by "define"...and when I find that out, I will give you my "definition" of what I mean when I use the word "god"...and we can discuss your position.
I suppose, defining x could be predicating x that x is (uniquely) identifiable?
Otherwise, the only option may be to show x (which would be existential proof at least).
In the case here, x is used in so many ways as to become contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever.
Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter
Both. And...
Quoting Frank Apisa
alrighty then
Okay...then I will respond to the part that deals with the word "god."
I have several "definitions" (explanations of what I mean when I use the word...) "god."
None of them are what you suggest is, "...contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever."
The fact that there are several "definitions" of a word is not unusual...or is it debilitating to conversation or discussion. As a "for instance"...if a person starts a conversation identifying as "an atheist" or "a liberal" or "a conservative"...you still have a way to go before figuring out what is meant...but you CAN converse and discuss with some notions in mind.
I am not a fan of the "what do you mean by god" question from people who use the descriptor "atheist." We can talk about that if you want, but it would be a diversion from the thread, so let's avoid it here.
Just (say) three will do. Don't be coy, Frank, do tell.
If someone wants to talk, only to refuse to tell about what, then what are they wanting to talk about anyway? Be it Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), their feelings, that over there (showing), "the great unknown" (or "unknowable" perhaps), ghosts of imagined entities, ..., whatever.
Might as well predicate sufficiently, or all bets are off, everyone might head off in whatever directions. Before someone starts talking about their gods, these discussions don't come up in the first place.
Granted, sometimes the subject is contextually implicit in the situation, like during a prayer session over at the mosque.
(Incidentally, a Shaivist mystic once scorned me for using the word "God" when referring to the Biblical Yahweh; so I learned to be a bit more respectful with word-use.)
My suggestion earlier round up three possibilities: define, show, go by common usage (coinciding somewhat/partially with your comment). Maybe there are others?
No problemo! Each subtly different.
#1:
[i]What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”
I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.[/i]
#2:
[i]What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”
Predicates:
It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.
Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.
Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.
Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)[/i]
#3:
[i]My definition of "god."
An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”[/i]
a) God, and then the big bang.
b) Nothing, and then the big bang.
a) and b) are equal in stupidity.
How small-minded and boring must one be to confidently express that nothing or God came before the big bang?
I'd rather assume that ancient simulations and intelligences had existed before - we don't have evidence of these because we're too far away - in too strange of a simulation.
Just saying; nothing, is not a sensible answer - it's equal to God in stupidity. What makes you think nothing came before? You have no evidence, it's not like you rounded it down either.
Massive, elemental, big bang, filled with lot's of stuff. How did it get here? "Oh, nothing - or God".
Thanks! :up:
Well, in so far as the universe's earliest measurable era had a planck radius and was an acausal quantum event (i.e. a random vacuum fluctuation re: Noether's Theorem, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, Hartle-Hawking No Boundary, etc), causal agency such as "creator g/G" does not obtain. Evidence of "creation" - higher than minimal entropy - must be observable (directly or indirectly) like all other events / physical transformations in the universe and yet there is no such evidence whatsoever; therefore, this entails that there is no - never was a - "creator g/G". Theism - Abrahamic, Vedic, Greco-Roman, Norse, etc - is not true.
It doesn't matter whether or not g/G is "supernatural" but whether or not any such g/G is defined as intervening - causing changes - in nature; and if so, because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable, then the claims of believers or scriptures that some g/G has intervened - caused changes - in nature entails observable (direct or indirect) evidence - and yet there is none whatsoever. Again, theism is not true.
One must not know whether or not there is scientifically observable nature in order not to know whether or not there is (at least one) g/G that intervenes - causes changes - in, or created, nature. Scientific (& historical) illiteracy notwithstanding, nature itself is evidence that there is no theistic g/G - theism is not true. If someone claims that an angel walked across wet cement, then there must be footprints; if there are no footprints in the wet cement, then that 'walking angel' so described does not exist - or the claim that she walked across the wet cement is not true - insofar as walking on wet cement causes the observable effect of leaving behind footprints.
Okay...if you and the others say so.
Although I prefer to be more circumspect.
Quoting 180 Proof
Okay, if you say so. But I prefer to be more circumspect.
As for things like, "...because nature is scienfically observable and therefore changes in nature are scientifically observable..."...well, I prefer to be more circumspect. Some humans seem to think that things can only exist if humans can detect them/it. Those humans may be all wet.
Jury is still out as far as I am concerned.
Oddly worded comment. Give it another try and I'll respond.
Because it transcends logic: bivalence/LEM.
Quoting substantivalism
Yes, Jesus existed. Why is that so difficult to comprehend? I'm still confused regarding your burden of proof argument.
Well, I'm sorry you feel frustrated enough to throw in the towel. I was just getting ready to provide some additional fodder to digest. Meaning, there are other features of conscious existence that are equally as mysterious ( aside from how the conscious and subconscious works together). With respect to metaphysics, (the Will) as we've been discussing, does in fact function in other mysterious ways during cognition/everydayness.
For instance,
- St. Thomas, the Intellectualist, had argued that the intellect in man is prior to the will because the intellect determines the will, since we can desire only what we know. Scotus, the Voluntarist, replied that the will determines what ideas the intellect turns to, and thus in the end determines what the intellect comes to know.
"3. There is no "before the big bang".
This last is the view implicit in the very physical theory that deduced the big bang.
Are you sure? That seems to be patently false because energy was created prior to the Big Bang.
But you already have! Thanks, Frank. :smirk:
It was? And how do we know this? Or are you again just making stuff up?
I think you would be making stuff up if you were to try and argue that. Kind of like arguing multiverse.
...that is, time started with the big bang.
If by "theism is not true" you mean that the assertion, "There is a god" is not true...
...then there is no way I could possibly have answered it. I have no idea if the assertion, "There is a god" is true or false...just as I have no idea if the assertion, "There are no gods" is true or false.
If you want to discuss this issue, let's do so. If you are just messing around...let's not.
I agree, in the absence of evidence there is no reason to claim that god exists; nor any reason to suppose that he does not.
But I don't think we need stop at that. We can ask if there is a coherent notion of god.
This, of course, puts the ball in the theists court; it is up to them to present a description of god that is consistent and tenable. But we can go a step further and say that if an agnostic is going to claim that god is possible, then they also should be able to present an account of what god is, that is consistent and tenable.
And in the absence of such an account, atheism seems the reasonable conclusion.
We've already discussed it for months now. We don't even disagree actually because your assertions are incoherent (not even false) and don't address my arguments substantively. It'd help 'our discussion' if you'd carefully read what I've written on this topic (here and elsewhere) and respond accordingly, but you haven't and still won't (or can't). I now only respond to your 'agnostic confusion' in order to edify - provoke - others who might be as confused, though not as incorrigibly as you clearly are, Frank.
Prior to the big bang was potentially many simulations like the universe; why must we be the only existence?
Isn't that small-minded?
Why nothing? Nothing is lack of anything; if there ever was nothing; how did it become a big bang? If it was nothing, then how did it gather the power needed to become something?
I expect you to say "I don't know" to my question, and given that I tend to agree with my own theory about ancient simulations (involved in big bang science).
I completely understand what you mean by there's no evidence to suggest g/G that there is no evidence to suggest ancient civilizations - but when deducing what may have caused - and I'm saying there was a cause to - the big bang, other life seems reasonable.
When I take in your comment about nothing being there I'm confronted by the questions I asked earlier; how did it become a big bang?
If nothing undergoes transformation and becomes a big bang, that transformation is the part I'm pointing to.
I'd even go as far to blindly guess that intelligent life existed.
This isn't something I'm assured of, I'm making a suggestion - it is a 'God-of-the-gaps' typo proposition. This is based on my experience of people's will-to-live, their creativity and so forth.
Do I think life before the big bang was possible? Why can't a different simulation form like the universe? Do we take up all the space in existence? This is what bugs me.
(I might be wrong - I don't know - you're confusing me with confidence).
What is south of the South Pole?
The question makes no sense. The notion of "south of..." stops working at the south pole.
Same goes for "before..." at the big bang. That's what the mathematics says.
Quoting opt-ae
Not at all sure what this is about.
You lost me.
Usually, there is a before, during and after. The mathematics you claim to know is, during and after but before makes no sense.
Again, you lost me. I've had enough of this, I'll leave God to you guys.
"South" starts at the pole.
""before" starts at the big bang.
See the second answer here...
I didn't see this, and on a quick look did not find a post about it...
But claiming that the universe is a simulation does not seem to me at all helpful in explaining why the universe exists...
Suppose that this universe is a simulation. Then, there is another, second universe in which this universe is simulated; this universe is a simulation, the second universe in which it is simulated is the real universe...
But then we can ask, why is does that second universe exist? Why is there a second universe in which this first universe can be simulated?
How do you answer that? is that universe itself a simulation? then there must be yet a third universe in which the second universe is simulated...
Simulations all the way down?
Correct; there is no before in context of universe-time; universe time begins at the big bang.
Given it had a cause(something I brought up that is continuously ignored), I'm not limiting myself to illusions or abstractions of nothing.
There was nothing - contextually: universe life - before the big bang.
Yes, ancient simulations, other simulations, now you're hearing me out. I don't think it's illogical like you suggest though, simulations of this universe may only be one segment of another simulation - such as the space where the super computer exists that observes it.
Cause is over-rated.
The first part of what you said there sounds very fair to me, Banno...
...although we might have to discuss what "consistent and tenable" means. We can do that!
That last part sounds gratuitous to me.
In the absence of this "consistent and tenable" thing...the reasonable conclusion I see is "the theists are not being successful." Nothing more.
The "atheist" part means assigning a descriptor to that lack of success...and the descriptor "atheist" carries lots of baggage. I doubt, for instance, we could conclude, AS DO SOME ATHEISTS, that therefore NO GODS EXIST.
If you would prefer to divert to that kind of shit, 180...do it with a fellow amateur, not with me.
Memories make us insecure - I'd prefer to be a machine.
Now, some may say, without memories we'd experience less sensations like those involved in sex, but they underestimate the mind.
Of course not.
Is that the level on which you want to discuss this?
I do not want to take up your time if you think I am a simpleton...or an unworthy discussion partner.
What about, say, The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)? Solipsism? Dream thought experiments? Intangible hobs that can control the weather? (Heck, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings?)
With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple back-pedal-procedure by which existential claims can be (counter)evidence-immunized. Seems rife in religious apologetics, reducing their epistemics to being on par with the above, despite their continuous insistence on existential claims.
It takes ... something to unabatedly continue declaring such claims true. (And thoroughly declaring agnosticism in such matters doesn't seem quite right.)
I see. That would mean a creation event occurred. Kind of like when St. Augustine proclaimed that the world was made with time and not in time which is precisely the modern scientific position.
Surely you don't believe that do you?
Let's stick to the question of "Are there any gods involved in the REALITY of existence?"
My response is:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
That is an agnostic position on the question, Jorn. If you see something irrational about anything in it, let's discuss it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Try to "reason", Frank, then you might "know or "see" ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391861
...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God?
Again, that is what the mathematics of the big bang theory describes.
I could be missing something here, but your definition of the word "god" does not correspond with the definition used by pretty much every other human being on this planet.
Maybe some of the pantheists out here would agree with you - but not being a pantheist I can't speak for them.
Because suffering, pain, and poverty there is no place in God that could have any control over it.
Satan is more powerful entity than God, according to Christians most people go in hell, therefore Satan has more power over mankind. Also Satan seem to share similar entities with God, such as control over people, creating demons (omnipotence). Obviously if God existed, he would make end to suffering and Satan. But God and Satan seem to be same powerful entities, because either can have fully provoke each-others.
Perhaps God is just some narcissistic being like human, who wants own best and doesn't care about other beings, or even have control over global problems, such as pandemics,wars, and poverty.
Generally human seem to be more powerful, omnipotence, and loving-being that God itself.
God is human.
This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors sleight of hand to convince believers in scientism that scientism has the big questions answered and that it is irrational to delve any deeper into them.
"nothing to see here"
...and that is nothing like an argument.
Quoting Punshhh
Indeed.
So tell me, what exploded in the Big Bang? Or was it Nothing that did I it?
Therefore no God.
Again, nothing to see here.
Everything.
More smoke and mirrors.
So everything came into existence when everything exploded.
So it's everything all the way down?
Cool, I'm just pointing out that what science (including math), or scientism has determined cannot be used as a justification for atheism, or as an argument against theism (unless the theist is relying on it for their argument).
SO on one side we have general relativity an the observation that the universe is expanding, leading directly to the mathematics of the big bang, together with the various interpretations...
...and on the other we have Punshh claiming "it's all smoke and mirrors"...
And you want to be take seriously?
So yes " "it's all smoke and mirrors" ".
Well, that's just wrong. It's an answer that you do not like, to be sure.
Try this: what remains unexplained?
What do you believe "explains our origins" requires or entails?
There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.
There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.
One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.
Theists blindly guess one way...and most atheists blindly guess the other way.
But there is no reasoning or logic invoved...just guesswork.
Quoting Banno
I have no idea of "what it is like to be God.
I was asked for a coherent definition of what I mean by gods...I gave it.
Where? I must have missed it
You are correct, you cannot speak for them.
By the same token I cannot speak for "pretty much every other human being on this planet."
But I can speak for myself...and I have.
I suspect most people who want to assert that there are no gods do not want to talk with people who DO offer a coherent "definition" of gods...but rather prefer to debate people who offer incoherent, babbling notions of gods with robes, sandals, rules, fury, rewards, and (most of all) punishments.
Atheists, in general, want to argue with theist the way bullies want to pick on people smaller and weaker than themselves.
That I cannot help you with.
Previous page.
You didn't miss it. You are trying to be cute...and pretend my response was not coherent.
It was coherent. What it wasn't, Banno, was the kind of thing you want to argue against.
Like in my comment above...you want to argue with the weak.
Can't help you there. But if you want to have a discussion with someone who is willing to give respect when it is given in return...we can talk.
Not at all, it's just facing facts. Which is that the material we see before us is constituted in that way (as documented by science), not as to its, or our origins.
Whether our origins are a happenstance of dust (which itself fails to explain it), or our origins lie in some other means like idealism for example.
No exceptions taken. I'm supprised though, I didn't think you'd acquiesce to Deity.
There's something other than everything...? Odd. :)
No known phenomenon has ever been best explained by the gods or supernatural magic — could literally be raised to explain anything and therefore explains nothing, not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, has consistently been falsified in the past — literally a non-explanation.
The gods are similar to things we know aren't real and unlike things we know are real; no gods are unambiguously detected by unbiased observers; gods take idealized forms that the person can conceive and hold attitudes and values the believer projects into them.
Every posited god that has things of utmost importance to tell all mankind (perhaps like worship, perhaps the importance of whichever religious scriptures) has failed (not almighty) or is deceptive (not omnibenevolent).
But, hey, ...
Do we always strand on "the unknowable", "the ineffable" or some such (by way of Sagan's procedure)?
So then your dismissal of the explanatory relevance of [physical cosmology / quantum gravity ... ]
.
Quoting Punshhh
likewise is nothing but "smoke and mirrors" too. Okay. Just checking.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Like a broken record you keep repeating this "guesswork" with "no reasoning or logic involved", but repetition doesn't make it so and only reminds me/us that your 'agnostic confusion' is not even false. Rodeo clownin' you has become a guilty pleasure, Frank. :sweat:
You know of only your existence here on earth. How can you be so certain of the nature of existence in the wider universe? The multiverse? All possible kinds of realities?
It is illogical to profess certainty on such a question.
No reasoning or logic involved in any of the guesses about whether there are gods or not. Strong atheists and theists share that quality...making blind guesses and having "faith" that those blind guesses are correct.
I figured you didn't have the guts for a real conversation. Go pick on some theists...be the bully. But make sure you don't tangle ass with someone who can actually show you to be the blind guesser you are.
Well, you're definitely not one of them, ... so I'm still waiting. :victory: :smirk:
If you want to blindly guess there are no gods...and pretend it is something more than a blind guess...do so, 180. I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy...and I thank you for providing it.
I have no problem with you living in your land of fantasy, 180.
Best to think of my laughing as laughing WITH you even though you know I am laughing AT you. What the hell, in your fantasy land, it should be a snap for you.
And...if you want to pretend your blind guesses about the REALITY are more than blind guesses...so much the better. Comedy is best if the comedian plays it straight.:wink:
I don't think we can discuss everything, because we can only know things in our vicinity ( the known universe) and of that only what we can detect.
It might be a problem if I try to explain something, but I'm not, I'm accepting the truth of our predicament.
I put that down to human frailty. Also we can't determine what events might have been influenced by Gods, should they exist.
I am sure we stand on solid ground ( metaphorically), but that we are unaware of that ground, or its nature, we are ignorant of the truth of our origins. Sagan's procedure is only applicable when a theist makes claims about divinity.
And your evidence/argument for these assertions is... ?
And obviously there is middle ground between knowledge and "blind guessing". You should also consider answering jorndoe's question about other entities whose existence is dubious- surely you don't take this same agnostic position with respect to dragons and underpants gnomes and so on? And if not, why the special pleading wrt theistic deities but not other fictional entities?
Hardly smoke and mirrors or sleight of hand, though certainly an inconvenient or awkward situation for (at least some) theists. But given the current picture of our best and most rigorously corroborated physical theories, predictability and our ability to posit meaningful cause/effect relations breaks down utterly at the gravitational singularity of the Big Bang/relativistic picture.
And its actually immaterial for our purposes here, whether this represents something physically real or just a breakdown/artifact of theory (i.e. lacking as we do any viable alternative- a successful quantum theory of gravity)- either way, talk of "before" the Big Bang or any sort of prior cause is incoherent, literal non-sense, in the same way that "north of the North Pole" is incoherent. If you disagree, you're going to need to do a bit more than wave your hand and stomp your foot saying "nuh-uh!"- tell us how we can meaningfully talk about "before the Big Bang" or causes of the Big Bang, given that GR breaks down utterly at the t=0 singularity of the BB model, with all the bizarre shenanigans (path incompleteness, etc) that entails. Needless to say, we probably shouldn't hold our breath on this count.
Let's break this down a little.
The problem with the insistence that there is no before the Big Bang is that it is in reference to any before's in relation to the spacetime resulting from the Big Bang. In which case it is a valid argument. But it ignores any other states not of a result of the Big Bang. For example some other Big Bang, or some other unknown state/s in which the Big Bang originated.
The problem with both the claim that it is incoherent, or illogical is the same issue, it is only in reference to spacetime resulting to the Big Bang. It is perfectly rational to consider other states not as a result of the Big Bang. Because logic does not exclude the existence of other states, only that these other states are entailed in the Big Bang. For example it is problematic to make any claims about a God being involved in the Big Bang, because the Big Bang and the resultant universe appears to be an independent self autonomous entity encapsulating its own space and time and material. Such that for the God to have any involvement in its processes would violate the laws of nature within.
As an aside, there is a bigger problem for your side of the argument than the issue of the origin of physical material described by science. It is to do with the ground of physical material and the way in which events are orchestrated in time as we experience it and the nature of sentient beings. While we have no idea of the nature of the ground of the physical reality, or of being, we really are in ignorance.
For example is the ground some unknown cosmic dance between big bangs and black holes and nothing else, or is the ground some kind of artificial stage for the expression of being generated by highly advanced beings? Or is it some kind of dream of a God, or an unknown cosmic creature.
We really are ignorant regarding the grounds of existence.
If you think I am wrong...easy enough to show me to be wrong.
Here is a C: Therefore there are no gods.
Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.
Here is a C: Therefore there is at least one god.
Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.
Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is one.
Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.
Here is a C: Therefore it is more likely that there is at least on god than that there are none.
Give me the P1 and P2 to arrive at it.
Not on the question "Are there any gods or are there no gods."
Here is my agnostic position (which I have given at least a dozen times in the forum:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
Are you actually saying there is not enough unambiguous evidence about those things upon which to base a meaningful guess?
We agree on that, 180. Your position is laughable.
And hence, by your line of thinking, neither on ...
But that's fine I guess.
Guess whatever you like. Great thing about a guess is...it might be correct.
Unfortunately, inherent in "it might be correct" is..."it might be incorrect."
Laughter is good for you.
We are both getting lots of laughs.
A win/win situation.
Don't get that very often on the Internet.
Hope you are enjoying it as much as I.
Don't think so, Jorn.
But we will see where this goes.
I'd be rather careful with extrapolating physical theories as such given their parasitic assumptions on certain space-time philosophies. In this case it seems you're using a sort of spacetime realist interpretation of general relativity and also extending a theory perhaps to a point in which it breaks down (singularities appear). This is a particular interpretation of the theory and not exactly the one or only.
The first is direct personal admittance of ignorance and the latter comments a form of epistemologically successful deduction on your part. A respectable position to hold and for others rather frustrating as to hold any one position (theist, atheist, ignostic, agnostic) there must be a clear definition of the terms involved including the word god here. If such a concept proved to be incoherent then we would all be atheist, if it merely rebranded meaning wise to another readily existent thing/concept (universe) then perhaps we are all theistic, and if it falls along the line of a deistic/classical conception of god then an agnostic position would be perhaps most favored. In lieu of these situations we are all ignostics.
I say, "Screw the descriptors. State a position on the question as fully and accurately as one can."
I even dislike using "agnostic" these days...and try always to use "This is my position, which is an agnostic position."
Then I state the position:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
That is absolutely the truth for me.
If someone feels it is defective...I will live with that.
I asked you a question, which you didn't answer. I'll ask again. What is your evidence/arguments for the following assertions-
Or does your evasion of the question mean that you don't have any evidence or argument for these assertions?
C'mon @Frank Apisa show your "evidence or arguments" to him/her like you showed me. :razz:
Well, actually, yes you can. Whether time genuinely originated at the Big Bang (a legitimate possibility) or our ability to meaningful posit or understand cause/effect relationships merely breaks down at that point as an artifact of theory, "before the Big Bang" is not something that we can meaningfully speak to. And as Banno and others have pointed out, its comparable to talking about "north of the North Pole" in that trying to extend talk of temporal or causal relations past the Big Bang singularity is undefined- nonsense, word salad- given everything we currently know and lacking an adequate theory for situations where gravitation dominates on the quantum scale (as in the Big Bang and the interior of black holes).
What breaks down is the maths and physics, not philosophical questions about origins, or other things.
The word of interest here is "meaningful", philosophically we can consider things which science can't, because science is only concerned with hard evidence. Philosophy can recognise the role of meaning in understanding ideas and speculate on realities which may only be indicated by evidence.
As I said, it's only nonsense when one is referring to some event of the contents, or products of the Big Bang as prior to the event itself. Something which is self evident and I agree with (well except for a notional undefined substance, or state, which did the exploding).
Now there might be another Big Bang with a different signature or universe and nature. Tell me I'm wrong to say that?
Talk about word salad.
Anyway, just because we don't have a scientifically rigorous understanding of the processes involved in the Big Bang, doesn't mean that we can't refer to one, or its contents.
For example I suggest that just like there are large numbers of atoms in our world, there may be large numbers of Big Bang events, in formations, as there are formations of atoms in our world. What's wrong with that?
Easiest assertion to show as wrong.
All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.
But you cannot.
So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.
I thank you good folk for entertaining me.
And I thank you for that same reason, 180.
About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist
In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.
I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.
Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.
So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:
UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.
Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:
[b]I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.
But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless.
Thank you, Eric. In my opinion, that was the most reasonable reply to what I am saying thus far.
Keep in mind that I am offering what I MEAN when I use the word "gods." I am not in any way suggesting that is the only "definition" of the word...just that it is what I mean when I use it.
As for the "supernatural" thing...I reject that completely. ANYTHING that actually exists, whether we humans can perceive it or sense it in any way...IS NATURAL. It does not become supernatural simply because we humans cannot perceive it (at this stage of our evolution.)
We discover new "things" and new ways of discovering "things" all the time.
If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. I am not ignostic. My position is stated as completely and clearly as possible in my statement as offered...without the changes you have suggested.
If the gods have to be "supernatural" (apparently meaning they must be things that do not exist)...we've simply lost contact in the discussion.
In any circumstances, I hope you see that my challenge is directed to people who say, "There is at least one god"; "there are no gods"; "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
I challenge anyone who asserts any of those things...and claim the assertion is based on logic or science to prove it.
For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.
Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?
And my answer:
1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic.
Are you telling me what I was on about with my own comment...? Odd.
As I said, I you want to be "ignotic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that.
If you want to identify as theistic, pantheistic, atheistic, agnostic...or anything else...I respect that.
Even odder that you think that is what I am "telling you."
You suggested that I zoomed in on the wrong word.
I am saying that I didn't.
If you have some point to make that you did not succeed in making...that is on you, not on me. I am free to "zoom in" on whatever I choose to zoom in on.
You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile:
General Relativity, cosmic expansion and the cosmic background radiation, what is the alternative to the BIg Bang?
But I'm not talking about events back in time from the singularity, I'm talking about its origin, or the existence of other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity we find ourselves in.
So the origin might be in a substance, nothing, or some existing state, which results in Big Bang events. Which is your preference?
Regarding other singularities, or other things which are not products of the singularity. There might be a spectrum of Big Bang events. There may be other entirely different places, forms of existence. You are now going to have to tell me why we as philosophers can't discuss these possibilities in the light of empirical evidence found in our world?
But this is contradictory, and that's the point- causes precede their effects (i.e. temporally), so if you're trying to talk about the cause or origin of the Big Bang- so, divine creation for instance- then you're talking about "events back in time from the singularity". But that's nonsense, as far as our best current picture of the early universe goes, the singularity at t=0 is like someone took a cosmic hole-puncher and just cut out a hole in the timeline of the universe. We can't extend causality, temporal relations, geodesics, or anything through that point- you can't pass go, you can't collect $200, until we know how gravity operates on the quantum scale we're just spitting goobledeegook.
I'm not doing that, what I am talking about is any processes involved in the origin of the Big Bang. This does not necessitate a prior event, it is an enquiry into how it originated. The means by which it originated might not be temporal, or spatial, or might involve separate temporal, or spatial events. Separate from the contents of the Big Bang event.
Its only nonsense if you make the assumption that universal, or absolute time originated in the Big Bang we see before us. Are you making that assumption?
Science can't (this is not a scientific discussion).
Yes close the discussion down, nothing to see here.
Even scientists speculate about this stuff, are they spouting gobbledegook?
I most assuredly am not "in over my head."
You are doing the equivalent of a theist asking an atheist to prove there are no gods. You are attempting to shift the burden of proof.
Look at what I have "asserted."
I am essentially saying that anyone ASSERTING that they have arrived at "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" (or vise versa) VIA SCIENCE OR LOGIC...bears a burden of proof for that assertion.
There is no burden of proof on my part...and it is not blind guessing.
If YOU make such an assertion...do it, if you can.
People who claim that logic and science leads them to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are like people who claim "there is a GOD"...I KNOW this because of the personal relationship I have with that god. Two sides of the same coin.
People who claim that logic and science leads them to "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are like people who claim you (others) can have the god reveal itself to them if only they "accept" the god. Two sides of one coin.
That kind of atheism is not a result of logic or reason or science. It is the result of blind guessing...and bears a burden of proof.
You could easily destroy my argument by offering a SINGLE syllogism (that a logician would accept) with a conclusion of "therefore there are no gods" or "therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." That is all you need...one offering of a P1 and P2 that does the job.
You won't...because you cannot.
Instead, you ask me to prove a universal negative.
Entertaining, but not enlightening.
Take a close look at God's role in our lives and two among them is policiary and judicial - like Judge Dredd of comic book fame. Given this is so, isn't all the fuss about God very much like a band of thieves looking anxiously over their shoulders for signs of Judge Dredd?
Perhaps there's some other benefit to knowing the truth about God but right now I feel like, probably am, a criminal on his next job, scanning the locale for the men in blue. :sad:
Well, cutting to the chase, if there is (at least one) theistic g/G (i.e. "revealed supernatural agency") then ALL of our sciences are invalidated and histories mere fictions, because only that theistic g/G is real and only Its "revelations" are true and the moral values It espouses (i.e. "commandments") are objective - or, at the very least, all human endeavors contrary to, or inconsistent with, Its "revealed truths" are false and immoral by definition. Besides the nature of nature itself, I think the very nature of human reason and human agency (re: integrity, dignity) depends on answering this singular question, and then living with that answer if it's "yes" or living with the question if the answer is "no".
I thought science ignores the creator and channels its attention to the creation.
The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho
Back here you criticized @DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage.
However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage.
But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning.
In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.
"I can't lie to you about your chances, but... you have my sympathies."
Quoting TheMadFool
I'd say science seeks "the creator" by studying "creation" (e.g. ... Hypatia ... Maimonides, Ibn Rushd, Aquinas ... Spinoza ... Newton, Leibniz, et al). The scientist seeks the ultimate explanation (ToE) of the universe - whatever there is - or, failing that, some fundamental [process] that cannot even in principle be encompassed, or accounted for, by physics, that is, the super-natural. Perhaps "the creator" is just asymptotically over the (Planck? Hubble? Hartle-Hawking?) horizon - thus, the inexorable (metaphysical? theological? promethean/faustian?) drive to know infinitely more (about) "The Infinite". :fire:
I have not contradicted myself.
I did not such thing. I merely pointed out some observations I have made about people who use the descriptor "atheist" and suggested those elements should be included in definitions of the descriptor. The element (being convinced that it is more likely there are no gods than that there is at least one) would exempt agnostics like me from being called "atheists" because we lack a "belief" in gods. Agnostics like me ARE NOT convinced it is more likely that there are no gods than that there are. The whole likelihood (probability) is manufactured.
How many times do I have to explain that I am using the term the way....I...am using it.
I am explaining how I use it...not demanding that everyone else must use it that same way.
I mean it to be: "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”
If you think that to be so drastically different from what others mean...there is no way I can help you.
I WILL object, because I am not an atheist...and I will not have to come up with a new line of reasoning. I will simply have to hope the individual with whom I am speaking will have a better understanding of what I am saying than you seem to, Eric.
Done...by noting that there is no inconsistency.
* you end up with a discussion of, if g/God appeared before you, could you still answer the question, or can g/God answer it for you (to which I would suggest no). Because you will already have concluded that if g/God doesn't appear before you there is no way to answer the question in the negative, an answer of no.
Apparently, "it can't be answered" By You; many many, however, have answered the g/G-question intelligently either way, some even have conclusively (i.e. soundly - though no theist or deist has yet).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391632
Btw, call me "scientific materialist" and I'll answer to that every time.
I meant philosophically, many have answered it by other means.
What's that? And how does that help your cause in defending 'no God'? The truth is, it actually weakens your case because of your inability to describe conscious existence and other existential and metaphysical phenomena.
Alternatively, we are back to : When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.
So how does your scientific materialism help you? Is everything material? How did consciousness emerge from a piece of wood?
Do tell!!
I suppose you're right. Let's be realistic about the whole god thing. Assuming your position that it is, in fact, the creator we're ultimately seeking, what do we have to go on? The creation itself, right? Like the detective par excellence in a good mystery novel, put the "crime scene" under the microscope and make your deductions. What sort of a creator-god does the evidence support? A benevolent ruler or an evil genius or a clumsy dolt or maybe it could all be just an accident?
All that set aside, the evolution of the God concept evinces a clear trend toward a Judge Dredd persona - from bickering bands of powerful beings the divine has whittled down to a single entity entrusted with our welfare and empowered to ensure it.
Note also the fact that those who are most bothered about god's ontological status are those who are specialized in the morality sector viz. religious groups. I don't see scientists trying very hard to settle the matter one way or other. In fact, scientists, at least those who make the headlines, seem to be making an effort to disprove god, an indication that they've somehow managed to, in addition to other things, decouple morality from an all-powerful entity i.e. scientists seem to have made a break from the traditional and popular Judge Dredd characterization of God. I believe scientific indifferrence and even frank antagonism toward God serves as some indication that people are only interested in God's existence because he's just a better version of Judge Dredd.
I'm pretty sure that I am using something very close to your definition - someone who denies the existence of a god or gods.
Again, explicitly self-contradictory. Origin of the Big Bang = cause of the Big Bang = temporally prior = nonsense, i.e. "north of the North Pole".
I am not in over my head...and I am tired of your silly insults.
This is our last conversation.
The best contemporary science - (neo-darwinian) Natural Selection, General Relativity & Quantum Field Theory - is the overwhelmingly preponderant body of evidence that is inconsistent with - rules out to several or more decimal places - any (super-natural) "creator".
No. Scientists seek to disprove science. Period. The existence of a "creator" - super-natural anomaly - demonstrated by direct or indirect observations, would, in fact, be such a fundamental disproof.
A point of clarification: I am a materialist as a consequence of being an atheist (entailed by anti-theism) and not the (usual) other way around. So for starters, 3017, read Epicurus (or Lucretius) and Sextus Empiricus. Read Hobbes and Spinoza too. And maybe, in more contemporary terms, Feuerbach, Deleuze, Dennett, Haack, Stenger, Deutsch, Metzinger, Rovelli, and Meillassoux (or, as I prefer, Brassier). That is, if you want to understand something of what I understand and thereby how I can, with sufficiently strong warrant, claim that theism is not true. (Of course, historical & scientific literacy as well as varieties of entheogenic experiences (i.e. ecstatic techniques) also help.) You make it quite clear, however, that understanding (let alone knowledge) isn't what you're after. :shade:
Or in other words you are saying there is, there cannot be, any other existence than the products of the Big Bang event. How do you know this?
Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:
Given, Frank, that you do not know whether or not "any gods" exist, which "gods" do you believe in (trust) or worship daily (i.e. hope will protect or "save" you)?
Hint: I'd bet you answer the same as I do. :smirk:
None, 180. No worship...no fear of being "damned"...no fear requiring protection or salvation.
Fact is, I WOULD guess that if there are gods...none of them would need or want to be "worshiped"...and none would suggest a need for salvation or "protection from."
I do not need hints...I have posted that comment elsewhere in this forum. I certainly have in every other forum in which I am a participant.
If you are anywhere near as intelligent as I think you are (when you are not angry with what I post)...I would bet the same way you want to bet. That we answer that question essentially the same way.
Mmmm, let's see, I did a cursory read and I'm not too impressed with just a few of them:
Dennett: a discruntled atheist who wrote a political atheist book called Consciousness Explained wherein he ends at the beginning; consciousness is a mystery (thus his book say's nothing and a waste of money). The only credit worth giving him is his euphemism for metaphysics, and that being Qualia. So he really doesn't explain anything, does he?
Rovelli: Another political activist (supposed physicist) who was charged in conjunction with his political activity for crimes of opinion related to a strange book. The “new political order” of which Rovelli dreamed never materialized. “The movement failed because it was based on a very bad reading of reality,” he said. The only credit to give him is his views on time being an illusion. And so, if time is an illusion, tell me 180, how does that square with your atheism? You explain time for me, and if you can successfully, you may win the Pulitzer for fiction LOL.
Stenger: He maintained that if consciousness and free will do exist, they will eventually be explained in a scientific manner that invokes neither the mystical nor the supernatural.[citation needed] He criticized those who invoke the perplexities of quantum mechanics in support of the paranormal, mysticism, or supernatural phenomena, writing several books and articles to debunk contemporary pseudoscience. So tell me 180, rather than digress to mysticism, why don't you explain conscious metaphysical phenomena to me?
Spinoza: Now, there is a little bit of common ground, imagine that! What is it about Spinoza that appeals to atheism? (Also, Epicurus, correct me if I'm wrong, disagreed with the Anselm's omni-stuff associated with the mind of God. As a Christian Existentialist, no exceptions taken. And so your point would be what, that our existence is unknown?)
That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.
So:
If Frank Apisa's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,
If 180 Proof's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,
and no g/G-beliefs = atheism (i.e. a-theos, without g/G),
Then Frank Apisa's g/G position = 180 Proof's g/G position;
Therefore both Frank Apisa's g/G position & 180 Proof's g/G position = atheism.
Capice, Signore? :smirk:
We seem to have dueling definitions here.
I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.
I.e., denial is a form of belief.
Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin:
Your reasoning is wrong.
You acknowledge that "a-theos" means without a god...but then start to insert that "belief" thing. Essentially, you are acknowledging that it means "without a god" but then want to have it mean "without a 'belief' in a god."
Not the same thing, 180.
I am not an atheist.
In any case, better we explain our position rather than try to use a descriptor.
Here is my position:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
Describe yours...and we can discuss the significant differences between our positions.
Comprende, Senor?
I agree with that last part...the word "belief" is very slippery.
Many, but not all people who use the descriptor "atheist" do indeed "believe" there are no gods. Many actually assert it, as in, "There are no gods."
EVERY person I have ever known or know of who uses the descriptor "atheist" does "believe" (at very least) that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. That is such an important element to "atheism" that it should always be incorporated into its usage. (It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none...and make almost no more sense to "believe" it is just as likely that there is a GOD as that there are none.)
I hope that explains my position a little better. If you still have questions, please ask them.
Oh you're right about Frank's idiosyncratic 'definition'; but who cares? Words (concepts) belong to conventions of usage with long histories - they don't just mean, Humpty Dumpty-like, what one says they mean. Thus, Frank maladroitly equivocates & goal post shifts from thread to thread on the basis of his lazy Frankisms. Besides, if you read the prior post where I stipulate his as well as mine and everyone's agnosticism with respect to "any gods", what's at issue is the degree to which there are "any gods" that Frank believes in or worships, to which he's answered "None". And that position is indistinguishable from contemporary atheism in general, the derivation from ancient atheism in particular.
This statement by Stephen Roberts (who?) exhibits the shift from the ancient (poly / heno - theistic) ????? to contemporary (JCI monotheistic) atheism. To wit: whether or not one is agnostic about "any gods", there are "gods" one lives without, that is, doesn't worship, doesn't believe-in - at least one, or some, or all but one, or "none" (as Frank confessed).
As I've said quite a few times, I'm not interested in persuading you (or anyone), Frank, but to expose your (everyone's) misuderstandings, fallacies & nonsense / bullshit, and have a little fun (at your expense :razz: ) while I'm at it. Yeah, over your head is an understatement. :sweat:
I most assuredly am not in over my head.
But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.
Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm.
"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems.
Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).
Kind of like 180.
Totally outclassed.
Don't worry about it. You will never be able to recognize it.
Quoting Frank Apisa
We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.
That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?
Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.
BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . .
I do see the "tongue in cheek" aspect, Eric, but at the same time, I see the question as meaningful. I thank you for it, because it gives me a chance to mention something I should have said earlier.
An "atheist" is simply anyone who uses the descriptor "atheist" to describe him/herself. The "certainty" or strength of conviction that "there are no gods" or "it is more likely there are no gods" is actually not all that important. If a person says, "I am an atheist"...he/she is...regardless of those considerations.
I might also acknowledge that the one strong thing atheists who assert there are no gods have over agnostics is...they might be correct.
We just do not know if they are or not.
I would prefer that everyone just eliminate the use of descriptors in this area...and merely present his/her position without reference to theist, atheist, agnostic, ignostic, or the like.
Probably ain't gonna happen.
Like you said - it ain't gonna happen. But regardless - sometimes the specific reference is useful. E.g., you might want to say something like:
"I consider myself to be a [whatever]. For more information [some philosopher] expresses things quite well:
Also - it takes up space & time to repeat yourself. I personally find it much simpler to say I'm an ignostic (possibly with a link to wikipedia) - then to have to spout out a paragraph or two every time it comes up in conversation. If a persons ask what that means then you can explain.
Quoting Frank Apisa
No probability here. It ain't.
Mine is more like an astrolabe in which I fine tune the orientation for the purposes of a particular path of enquiry, while entertaining the presence of g/God, from a stance in which the existence, or not of said God is irrelevant. I threw belief out a long time ago.
Anyway you won't become embroiled in a struggle over the definition of God, or the existence of the supernatural with me, because I have reduced the issue to two clear positions for the/any answer given by one of these individuals is of little importance. The positions are;
Is our origin in a happenstance of dust, or a Shakespeare puts it, a "quintessence of dust".
Or is our origin by design, presuming some creator of some kind, which does not need to be defined.
So which is it?
It is self evident to me that philosophy cannot answer this question and that it is both the greatest puzzle in the predicament of mankind, while also beings his/her Achilles heal.
Neither.
It's a pseudo-question (lacks specificity, parameters, etc for determining what would count as correct answers) for starters. And philosophy concerns questions of concepts (analytical / dialectical descriptions) and not questions of how things are (theoretical explanations); assuming the latter is akin to a category mistake.
But the question remains, whatever a philosopher says. What you say, is evidence that philosophy can't answer, or address the question, not that the question is invalid.
You see, what God means to people amounts to more than the domain of the intellect. There is lived experience, events and agency involved. As such a theist is engaged in real/lived events, things inaccessible to the intellect, or intellectual analysis, because this analysis is limited, as the intellect is limited.
The intellect is primitive in comparison to the nature in to which it was recently born.
"Evidence?" Okay. :roll:
Btw, read the post again. My 'answer' was/is neither - because "the question is invalid" (i.e. "origins" is a question for science and not for philosophy).
Explain how an ultimate "issue" makes an existential difference one way or another to proximate beings like us.
[quote=Albert Camus]This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction.
[ ... ]
I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that I understand.[/quote]
I'm persuaded by Camus that such "existential issues" are Absurd and thereby should not be allowed to distract us from living on human terms. I contemplate the CMB from time to time - those are occasions when I imagine myself, like Sisyphus, happy.
:death: :flower:
Indeed. I think it was in cognitive science's William James who said, in his book about The Varieties of Religious Experiences: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.".
As such, in part, what you are talking about is ineffable experiences and/or phenomena. That phenomena extends into existential and metaphysical phenomena. For example, the feelings of Love, ecstasy, joy, peace, contentment, being that which you were born to be and do, a sense of oneness, so on and so forth, are all metaphysical features of conscious existence that confer little if any biological advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's otherwise needed to ensure survival.
So another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?
Tim!
Think of it this way, your own existence is "unreasoned". So what's the difference?
Interesting. Are you suggesting a subordination of objective reason? That's a rather important question here, no?
Subordination to subjectivity. And your answer... ?
Subjective truth v. objective truth. And your answer... ?
You are basically saying the difference between your lack of ability to use reason in explaining your own existence only matters to you yourself.
And so you must be subordinating Objectivity in favor of Subjectivity. And your answer is... ?
Okay, then let's break it down and start over to see how you use logic here in this context.. What do you mean when you say:
"The difference lies in what I (can) make of it."
What does "what I can make of it" mean? Does it mean, how you come to understand something?
Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding?
Okay let's try again. You said:
Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood
" Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding? "
In other words Tim, are you suggesting that your own understanding is more important than someone else's understanding?
Not really, but let's use your logic here. If the inspector's understanding is more important than yours and mine, how do you get to have better understanding?
Great. We are making progress, I think.
So, by your 'application and process' does that translate into experience? And would that suggest someone who has had a subjective religious experience has a deeper understanding than one who has not had such experience?
And if the answer to that question is 'yes', then is that primarily a subjective experience or an objective experience?
One reason that is such a critical question is because you stated that it is important for you yourself, to have understanding. That implies you feel that your own truth and understanding, is indeed more important than someone else's.
Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true?
Great. Let's look at how you yourself obtain your own understanding then.
How does your experiences effect your understanding about something?
Quoting tim wood
I'm not following you Tim. Are you now saying that my understanding is more important than yours?
Quoting tim wood
Really? Whose understanding is more important, yours or mine?
I'd go further than what Camus says as quoted above. I'm rather confused about what force an intrinsic/metaphysical "meaning" (whatever that is) would have even if we knew it did exist, so it's not even worth talking about. Like if an angel (or some advanced alien) approached me and told me I was created for a certain purpose, their existence will force me to change my scientific views, but not my values. Like I have certain interests and concerns (I value my friendships, I enjoy Japanese literature, and I have certain political views about society) What difference would be done to that if someone or something has an opinion on what I should do with my life, unless I was blackmailed into it. It's like as if someone's parents told their kids what to be when they grow up, why should you care about what they say?
Life is really just a string of moments of experience. If you define meaning/purpose as "it's worth spending those moments one way rather than another way" than I'm fine with these terms, but I don't see what's more complicated about it.
To stay on theme, are you suggesting that the kids have their own truth and own needs? Also, what does having " value" have any thing to do with our existence?
Nice. Is having such an experience some sort of subjective understanding ? And what do you mean by abstraction, is that like metaphysical phenomena?
Quoting tim wood
Okay, you said : Quoting 3017amen
So I'm getting confused, is your own understanding part of a subjective truth?
Interesting, so it seems as thought you don't really understand how you come to perceive understanding itself. Or said in another way, how experiences effect your understanding. I'm left to the conclusion that you really don't understand how in cognition, and your own abilities to reason, can come about.
If that is somewhat accurate, then how can you speak to the creation of yours and my existence (much less the concept of a God's existence)?
Alternatively, you used the term 'thing-in-itself', is that Kantian metaphysics I wonder :snicker:
Do tell!
Subjective truth: a truth that, primarily, matters to the individual. Does that help?
So back to your statement. Does your statement "The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.
— tim wood " mean that subjective truth is more important to you?
The nature of your understanding, your existence, the thing-in-itself.
And so, it appears that you are not clear on how to articulate your own sense of understanding. Otherwise, it seems the only thing you do know is, a type of subjective understanding or truth, that you yourself seem to have. Did I interpret that correctly?
Both, no?
Quoting tim wood
Don't overthink it. The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth to be more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ?
It means that only you know you. But that's a little confusing because you said you really don't understand the thing-in-itself. And that thing-in-itself is you, right?
Quoting tim wood
Are both true?
Quoting tim wood
Mmmm, let's see here. Am I to conclude ( I hate to sound redundant) that you do not even understand your own existence? I mean, first, you said that only things that are meaningful to you, are important to you. Now, you don't seem to be sure about how things become important to you through your own lack of understanding about cognition.
I'm confused here. How can you possibly argue against the concept of a God, and its existence, when you cannot even understand your own?
Please share!
This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with.
Personally, I practice mysticism, so unusual perspectives on such things is the norm. I don't impose any of it on others, or aim to indoctrinate others. As regards "unreason", well acknowledging our limitations casts a shadow on what we do, or can know, helping us to see what we think we can know, but really can't. Like for example if there are/were prior temporal events in the origin of the Big Bang event. Some folk around here profess to know such things.
Should I take your response as an acquiescence by silence? Atheism doesn't appear to be able to answer the many many questions about existence.
Perhaps embellish your 180 to something a bit stronger. LOL
Indeed. No exceptions taken.
Quoting Punshhh
I don't see it problematic at all. It's relative to the Metaphysical features of consciousness, which are different from that of Darwinian instinct. The analogies would be mathematical ability and/or musical genius. Neither of which confer any biological advantages in providing for survival of the fittest.
Similarly, if the atheist cosmological argument centers around materialism, it fails. As it relates to conscious existence, atheist Dennett acquiesced to the phenomenon of qualia, which is simply a euphemism for Metaphysical phenomenon from consciousness.
In short, Love is not needed for survival yet is a universally intrinsic and/or an innate feature of conscious existence. As it relates to musical and mathematical ability respectively, how could this (Love) universally subjective, yet seemingly objective truth, be so critical to the human condition?
That is just one of many things that relate to our self-awareness which is in itself, distinct from emergent properties of instinct.
You may harp on about others that don't share your belief, yet until you've justified it sufficiently there isn't anything to respond to here.
Not that it's about you or I, it's about theism.
That's an interesting comment.
1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?
This is a discussion about the concept of God. The concept of God impacts over 75% of philosophical domain's primarily because it's about something and not nothing.
If you believe in nothing, then it seems your choice is to believe in atheism. A belief is a belief. :chin:
An absolutely indispensable ingredient to using "atheist" as a descriptor...is the BELIEF either that there are no gods...or the BELIEF that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.
Atheism is a result of BELIEF every bit as much as theism is the result of BELIEF.
Not really. There really isn't much to it. If you'd read it as-is, that is.
(if anything, it's perhaps more interesting that you see it as another opportunity to launch presumptuous questions and slightly misrepresentative commentary, while still not even attempting to justify your faith sufficiently)
, if I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever @3017amen is on about apparently is.
Gee that's sort of a paradox isn't it? Why are you participating in this thread if it's not interesting?
Quoting jorndoe
Are you hiding behind ad hominem attacks instead of answering the questions about atheism/ nothing?
LOL
I'm a Christian Existentialist.
What wasn't particularly interesting was noted in the comment, which isn't the same as this thread.
Quoting 3017amen
Ad hominem would be saying that you're wrong because you're a dumbass. LOL
Quoting 3017amen
s'well, now you just have to justify why you've got it right and others ought believe so as well, that's what might be interesting here (we'll see)
I am not going to speak for Amen...
but my position has been stated clearly. Here it is again:
[i]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/i]
If you see anything wrong with that position, Jorn, PLEASE, let's talk about it.
Great! Could you answer at least one of these existential questions?
1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?
Quoting jorndoe
What am I right or wrong about, I'm confused.
Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.
Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?
Share them. We can discuss the reasons.
I suspect there are all sorts of things that exist...that I do not know of, Tim. What is your point?
Subscribed! 180, Tim, jorndoe and others have yet to make their case. I'm not really sure why.
When I ask them questions that, say, relate to existentialism, metaphysics and phenomenology, they seem to be at a loss.
I suppose using common sense, relative to sociology, Atheism is a minority belief system for a reason. That said, the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster.
And so I wonder why they can't support their belief system?
Materialism is blind, in the sense that it ignores any consideration of origin other than what is provided by the speculation of scientists. And takes for granted, indeed crystallises around the simplistic concepts* of the constitution of material as described by science.
But you allude to a blind spot in materialism, which reduces all such aspects of consciousness to the material products of the evolution of material.
Really we require a universe known to originate from dust alone to compare with our own, otherwise we will go around in circles philosophically.
*Symplistic compared to what is likely going on in existence.
That is a reasonable distillation into a sentence.
Knowledge via rational thought is secondary to other forms of knowledge.
There are fools all around us, like those who profess to know that there are no prior temporal events to the Big Bang event.
In day to day life, yes. But Mystics tend to be interested in reality rather than practicality.
For me, what we don't know is of interest, it helps to orientate ourselves, to find a secure anchorage.
Make what case? Waiting for you to make yours. But then ...
Quoting 3017amen
Don't put words in others' mouths. :down: There isn't that much we know exhaustively, and making stuff up won't do. Anyway, suggested elsewhere that there's no particular deductive dis/proof regarding some such likes of ...
[sub]The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
Last Thursdayism[/sub]
...
And that's then relevant to Frank Apisa's sort of (non-committal) agnosticism, of which you missed:
Quoting Frank Apisa
. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?
Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?
That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.
Surely you're not hiding behind ad hominem, are you?
LOL
Tim, that is embarrassing to even read. The best I could do with it is: What the hell does that even mean?
I have no idea of why you think that not only do gods not exist...
...but that it is not even possible for them to exist.
That, however, is one of the reasons I say that atheism and theism are much more closely related than atheism and agnosticism.
I get it. You blindly guess that there are no gods...and do not want to acknowledge that you are blindly guessing.
Fine. But when someone blindly guesses there IS at least one god...or blindly guesses that there are no gods...
...and then tries to make it seem "reasonable"...it comes across as tragic comedy.
Okay, Tim, your blind guesses on this issue are very important to you. That is the case with many theists also.
Live with it.
When talking to Frank - keep in mind that he appears to have a completely different definition of the word "god" than pretty much every other person on the planet (and likely most folks on this forum) - in particular his "god(s)" is not supernatural.
Frank Apisa Definition(s) of the word "God"
You did not give me a reason. You might as well have written that ice cream tastes good.
My "agenda" is to speak the truth.
If you want to pretend defending your blind guesses is the truth...be my guest.
, the suggestions I made were listed in the comment; maybe others made further suggestions that you somehow attribute to me. Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell.
Quoting jorndoe
A reason!
Stop being obtuse.
The fact that you cannot find an elephant in your room...or in your cup...is not a "reason" why elephants are impossible to exist.
The fact that you cannot detect a sentient being from a planet other than Earth...is not a "reason" why sentient beings from other planets are impossible to exist.
Knock it off. Get real, Tim.
Let's have a serious discussion.
There are some examples over here, that comprise reasons for not taking those claims particularly serious.
The more vague that claim, the less specific, the more convergent upon the unknowable ineffable, immunized against counter/evidence, the less particular reason for committing belief therein.
Yet, I don't recall having made decisions based on them (possibly) being real (along with whatever other such concoctions), don't recall having seriously pondered what they might be up to while doing more important stuff, what I could do to appease them, ... (my better half might get concerned)
If my epistemic attitude somehow was to demand that, then it'd be inconsistent with real life.
But hey, you never know, right...?
You have not given me a reason. You have typed some English words...and claim they are a reason.
Put your supposed reason into a syllogism with the conclusion being:
Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
Do it.
YOU CANNOT DO IT.
jorndoe!
Should I take your silence, as acquiescence, that you don't have answers to my (existential, metaphysical, and phenomenological) questions?
LOL
Now we're talkin'!!!! Let's see how the atheist can effectively use logic to determine the non-existence of a God !!!
Here's a little song you guys can sing along with. Sing it to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off"
Tim says ‘A reason’
And Frank says ‘Not a reason’
Frank says ‘It’s logic”
And Tim says ‘No logic’
A reason!
A raison!
Horizon!
No reason!
LET”S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!!
I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?
Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.
2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?
3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?
That's just a cursory read of your syllogism. Consider those questions then revise and resubmit.
C'mon, Tim. Try that kind of crap with an amateur, not with me.
We are not trying to show that "God (whatever that is) is a materially existing thing.
We are attempting (or YOU should be attempting) to show: "Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist."
Cannot get over that you tried something that silly. You seem more intelligent than that.
Like Frank said, this isn't philosophy 101. Do your homework. Thus far, your argument is not sound, nor does it logically follow from any of your premises... .
Tic toc tic toc, LOL
Actually, Amen is closer to being correct than you, Tim.
You gave a defective syllogism, which even if corrected would be of no more value to what we are discussing than:
All humans are mortal
John is a human
Therefore John is mortal
I don't know what?
Slow down...talk sense.
Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:
I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?
Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.
2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?
3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?
Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:
I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?
Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether its premise is sound or not.
2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?
3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?
Yes, the syllogism I gave is. The one you gave is defective...and does not even come close to applying to what we are discussing.
I gave you the C...and asked for a P1 and P2 that arrives at it.
You changed the C.
C'mon. No more playing the amateur. You know better than that.
You are out of control.
That happens when a person who does not like to acknowledge being wrong...
...IS WRONG.
Grow up.
Acknowledge you are wrong. You'll be the better for it.
It was not exactly what I asked for...IT WAS NOT EVEN CLOSE.
When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder.
LOL, I know. It seems as though he put himself in a precarious and/or somewhat untenable position :snicker: .
His heart seems to be in the right place...and he seems intelligent.
I hope he sees his errors.
I agree on all accounts.
[b]p1. I have reason to suspect that whatever necessariily transcends existence is impossible to exist.
p2. I have reason to suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.[/b]
:smirk:
Done.
Again.
(You're welcome!)
Quoting jorndoe
Then we'd be talkin'. (y)
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting Frank Apisa
(there cannot be a separate explanation for existence, since then that explanation would then not exist, but that's peripheral to @3017amen's burden here)
180, welcome to the party! Here's what you've suggested:
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.
p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.
p3. Therefore, I have reason to suspect it is possible for a god to exist.
Did I get that right ?
jorndoe, in case you missed my questions to you:
Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?
Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?
That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.
I'm sorry to keep putting you on the hot seat...or maybe you answered them, I couldn't find where you did though... ?
Call a local university and ask to speak with one of their logicians.
Tell them you offered that as a syllogism.
They will enjoy the laugh.
I did.
The best way to show the problem with 180 "syllogism" is to adapt it into another form. Here we go:
P1: I suspect anyone who would post a "syllogism" as silly as that one is a moron.
P2: 180 did post it.
C: Therefore I have reason to suspect 180 is an idiot.
What?
Now now you can't expect respect if you're not going to show respect in return. No need for ad hominems, Frankie, either way, right?
As with Tim...you would NEVER accept it from me.
So...go consult with a logician at a local university.
He/she will tell you, in a nice way, I am sure, that you are all wet.
Other than that...if you find a problem with the fact that I see no reason whatsoever to suspect there are no gods...and no reason whatsoever to suspect there is at least one god...
...fine with me.
I enjoy a laugh as much as the next guy!
Naïve, uncritical, gullible, malleable, credulous, "seeing faces in the clouds", ..., philosophically or otherwise?
Not sure I understood your comment right, entirely possible I misread, in which case discard: Per earlier, in what way does an adult's non-naïveté (or epistemic attitude) demand that they take into account, incorporate thoughts of, intangible hobs that can control the weather in their lives? (Should their spouse family friends be concerned?) If absent in any way that matters, then in/consistency between epistemic attitude and real life comes-to-the-fore.
Quoting Punshhh
Some of the claimants (including @3017amen if memory serves) have difficulties with biological evolution. :confused:
Quoting Punshhh
Are we talking grandeurs by which the universe pales?
The claimants will typically also have it that their super-beings can hide entirely from us, but we cannot hide from them, which seems mostly like post-rationalization.
A kind of rationalization going on here converges on a particular category of propositions, p, so that both p and ¬p are compatible with attainable evidence. Sometimes by design (intent-to-rescue), sometimes not.
Quoting Punshhh
Sometimes by design, immunized from counter/evidence. What's left? Epic experiences, personal revelations, ...?
"And where's Jesus?" :)
Coward?
To debate you?
C'mon...get serious.
There is no way you will ever accept me showing you how absurd and amateurish your "syllogism" is. So...just ask an actual logician. You will find one at your local university. He/she will be more than willing to show you just how defective that attempt was. They will probably bore you with the explanation...which will go on for a long time. There was lots wrong with it.
Consult a logician at any university...and he/she will laugh at your attempt.
Or...just pretend you have made a point.
Either way works for me.
Anyone with a brain realizes there is no way to counter my contention: I see no reason whatsoever to suspect there are no gods...and no reason whatsoever to suspect there is at least one god.
Atheists. They are such fun. They take themselves so seriously. :wink:
Quoting 3017amen
Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist.
Oh, 3017, you passed the audition for @Frank Apisa's idiot wingman a long time ago. :clap: :lol:
Ya gotta be able to handle things better than this, 180.
If you show you are thin-skinned...and that you have to resort to those kinds of childish insults...you forfeit.
Obviously an easy for you to do.
And entertaining.
I'm fairly confident you didn't miss ...
Quoting jorndoe
... given the comments you read.
Quoting 3017amen
Passive-aggressive diversion and disguised insults doesn't make your case.
[sub](as an aside, as far as you can be concerned here, I might believe there are little green men on Mars that possess supernatural magic, Shaivist mysticism, voodoo sorcery or otherwise, i.e. don't attribute something to me personally here that I haven't stated)[/sub]
Yup.
You are apparently clueless.
You shouldn't be. You are smart enough to see what is happening here.
Put down the shovel. You are deep enough.
Mmmmm, let's see...your syllogism must be incoherent then, because it uses the term transcendence? Would like to revise and resubmit yours?
Otherwise, once again, I'm afraid you've left yourself in the untenable position to define transcendence hence:
Quoting 180 Proof
How do you know God transcends existence? Is your premise true or false?
Jorndoe!
Are you able to answer any of my questions yet?
Idiocy does love company!
Hahaha.... let's see Frank, I believe we have another classic example of a disgruntled atheist who is hiding behind ad hominem.
In his syllogism, he can't even make his own premise(s) sound! It's as if he's trolling or something, not sure.
My comment was simply that the reasons given by atheists to support any conclusions that there isn't a g/God are naive in philosophical terms. Because a cursory examination would conclude that humans are ill-equipped to answer the question, either way, so theists are similarly naive to attempt to conclude the opposite using philosophy.
Anyway going back to your thoughts on hobs, it's more evidence of human frailty, I'm afraid. However the "non-naive" are not impelled to take hobs seriously. Because there is a legitimate philosophical issue concerning our origin, of whether it was by design, by a mind perhaps, or not. This is because of the primacy of our known experience being via the mind. Therefore our mental existence is philosophically primary to what is perceived, or experienced by us during our existence (but I expect you know this). So the enquirer can seriously consider this designer in the absence of, by implication, any hobs.
Each to his own. I don't see any inconsistency between divinity and the discoveries of science, such divisions are historical baggage.
No, it's a reality that we originated and that the nature of that origin is approached philosophically, hence metaphysics.
This is inevitable, I'm afraid, it's rather like a Laurel and Hardy sketch.
Apologies if I am not following the standard form of these debates, I approach from left field. But logic is no use either, without any genuine indication, or evidence of our origins we are blind to the reality, so anything we conclude intellectually is again mute on the issue.
Well these do figure in the lives of theists and they may entail other means of knowledge than the intellect. But as I said earlier it is impossible to prove even to oneself, if God is standing before you that g/Gods exist. Again due to human frailty. In reality there is a real process by which we originated and we are blind to it. That's as far as the intellect goes. To go further you have to use other means.
Jesus is professed to be a prophet, so has had his blinkers lifted apparently, amongst other things. Prophets do appear to attain some wisdom, even esoteric knowledge about reality, but it is not easily amenable to intellectual, or philosophical consideration. This I consider is due to the knowledge attained being of a different kind to that provided by the intellect.
I SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO SUSPECT THAT GODS CANNOT EXIST...THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GODS IS IMPOSSIBLE.
NONE WHATSOEVER.
Thank you for sharing that.
You should know...so I will pay attention to what you are informing me.
You are indeed blind if YOU cannot SEE what nonsense you are peddling here.
MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT...the one you took issue with was identical to the one you are now mocking.
You have to do that, because you were not able to show my statement to be irrational or illogical.
You are correct, though, there is nothing left here. Just an angry atheists cutting away with his tail between his legs.
If you decide to grow a bit of spine and some ethics...come back. I will be here. We CAN have a productive discussion on this issue.
Here's more fun with another basic syllogism/form of modal logic ( All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.)
1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .
Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?
No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?
You mean Jesus/God didn't exist, are you sure?
Okay, maybe parse each proposition/premise:
1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
Let us know!
LOL
Oh, and while your brainstorming, parse my questions if you can:
As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?
For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .
Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?
No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?
LOL
Quite, there is an assumption by humanity that the normal, or default state of living human experience is a stable emergent property of the interaction of physical material. That there need not be any more to it than that. I see this as a psychological comfort zone. It being advantageous for us (at this stage of our development) to dwell in a feeling of static peace, in which only that which we perceive and interact with in our environment is real and anything else entailed, which we don't perceive is absent, a myth.
This being the case, any novel, unexpected aspects of this reality tend to be dismissed as some sort of figment of an overactive imagination, or peculiarity of thought processes. In this way materialism dismisses speculation of such condierations out of hand, while ignoring any attempts to reconcile the big existential questions with our experience of living and handing them over to science which will eventually explain everything for us. Indeed some materialists insist that pretty much all fundamental questions have now been answered and that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution.
While to folk who stare the big questions in the face daily are dismayed at the complacency. For example, what on earth is it that enables such a complex entity as a human to persist in such a diverse environment as the world we find ourselves in, with time and extension, presence and being? We are all familiar with the account provided by the sciences. But that account is merely a description of what is found by the set of faculties we find we have in these bodies we find ourselves in at birth. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, not any kind of explanation, with the 90% of the reality of our existence hidden beneath the surface, like the iceberg. Simply because we are not equipped to perceive it.
And the materialist just says, nothing to see here, move along now, nothing to see here.
Explain how you know this - inexplicable occulting - to be the case, that it's our human cognitive predicament.
Also regarding our predicament, if you take the full breadth of human knowledge, it is entirely derived from aspects of our lived experience. An experience dictated by the nature of the bodies and biosphere we find ourselves in, are born into. Even our intellectual knowledge is born of a mind developed to pick berries and hunt with speares. A world in which things like space, time, physical material, gravity, solid, liquid, gas, fire, are all taken for granted as aspects of reality. To the extent perhaps, that their origins are not even considered, or how it all came to be the way it is. But rather, it is regarded as normality, even reality is self.
But actually what we take for reality in this way, is only a description of what we find, not an explanation. Although science has successfully explained how many of these aspects of our world relate to each other and interact, including the origins of things within the sphere of the materials we find in front of us out of others. However any explanation of the broader origins of this reality are entirely absent. This is understandable, because it is beyond our capabilities. But this realisation is not justification to deny any explanation there might be out there, however odd it might seem to be to us. In reality, we are in the dark when it comes to a knowledge of our origins.
Well of course the one major hurdle for the materialist is how consciousness emerges from a piece of wood.
The dynamic associated with existential angst relates to psychology and cognitive science, in that we are hard-wired to live a consistent life of striving, of wondering, of Being and doing. One can say it's the antithesis of instinct in lower life forms. In philosophy, it's known as the will. Or in the case of Schopenhauer, the metaphysical will in nature. Our will is metaphysical in nature. Otherwise, how do we explain the nature of our Will?
And that is a segue to Kant's intuit about synthetic a priori knowledge and why we have it, as an innate feature of consciousness (apart from pure logic). For example, we naturally think that all events are causational. We default to that sense of truth. That sense of wonder. But once again, what is the nature of wonderment? In consciousness, it's not material nor does it confer any biological advantages. Instinct is all that's needed to take it's place. Instead, wonderment involves, and confers, quality of life for human existence. It's an ancillary feature of consciousness, yet is vital for our quality of life. It involves discoveries in science and all the humanities. Without it... ?
And that leads also, to the Will to survive; live or die. What determines our Will to either check-out or stay alive? Quality of life?
Atheism cannot square any of those metaphysical and/or existential circles, nor can it explain the phenomena associated with consciousness (the will, wonderment, love, self-awareness, etc.) in a material way. I feel bad for atheists, they don't seem to be that intuitive, to say the least... .
The Will.
On a broader scale, think about seeds growing, electromagnetic waves (electrical phenomena), procreation, the weather, the nature of time, or anything that naturally occurs from our existence. Cosmologically speaking as it were, this metaphysical will in nature is quite extra-ordinary, no? Or in the alternative, is it ordinary, yet unexplainable? (Or is it explainable and normal?)
How does atheism address the metaphysical will (I wonder :snicker: ) ?
A key problem on philosophy forums is that religion is a kind of art, whereas philosophers tend to want to treat it as a form of science.
As example, an entirely fictional play upon the stage can share deep truths about the human condition. An atheist philosopher may be inclined to jump in the middle of the play and yell, "Hey! These people are just actors, and the story is totally made up!" In other words, it's bad science. Which is true, plays are bad science. And so the philosopher may walk away convinced they've made a devastating rebuttal, when really they've just missed the point.
On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another.
But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference in the world, rather than as an ideal to aspire to or a comforting thing to imagine or a metaphor or something, then they’ve lost track of the difference between fact and fiction.
In Christianity:
1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
Invalid because your first premise is false.
Sure. But a decent play ought at the least be self-consistent. Christianity isn't.
Well, it's surely true that many people take the stories literally, as a form of science. Why bother objecting? And, if we're going to object, we might be intellectually honest and recognize that some of the stories seem remarkably close to what science is telling us. "And then God said, let there be light." Kinda sounds more than a bit like the Big Bang, eh?
Perhaps the best example is the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Was there a guy, a gal, and a talking snake? Probably not. That part is probably just a fable which tries to explain something profound to uneducated peasants of 3,000 years ago, much as we might try to explain sex to a five year old.
But is our relationship with knowledge a central fact of our personal human experience? Is that relationship causing us to race towards ejection from the garden of eden of the biosphere in our own time? Does the Adam and Eve story reference something which could be profoundly true? Maybe it does.
My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless.
Quoting Pfhorrest
Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to convert you to anything, and if you prefer to believe you know what is fact and fiction on issues the scale addressed by god concepts, ok, go for it. Personally, I don't see that as being much different from the religious claims, but that's just somebody's opinion.
That's what I'm saying is fine with me. Taken as allegories, metaphors, teaching stories, I have no problem with these kinds of myths. There's a whole modern "religion" of "Jedi" who aspire to embody the values depicted by the fictional heroes of the Star Wars movies, but don't think that those movies actually depict a true history of something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. That kind of thing is fine with me. Tell a story about a really nice guy named Jesus and say we should all be like that? That's great! No problem! But say that there really is what is in effect a superpowerful benevolent alien being who created the planet and all life on it and actively intervenes to guide history toward some planned outcome where the people he approves of will live happily ever after? That... is going to take some major evidence, and lacking that I'm going to doubt the sanity of the people who honestly believe it.
Quoting Hippyhead
I don't think you're trying to convert me, but I don't get why you think the scale of the claims somehow makes them more plausible? If you told me your sister ate Cheerios for breakfast yesterday, I'd probably just take your word on that, because that's a small detail that's totally within the realm of what I already know to be quite plausible. But if you told me some tall tale about beings with fantastic powers doing things I've never credibly heard of anybody or anything doing, especially if those tales run counter to things I otherwise have good reasons to believe, then I'm going to want to know why you believe that, and "I read about it in an old story" won't be a very convincing reason.
My point is not that the scale of religious claims makes them more credible. It is instead that the scale of your claims makes them less credible.
However, the scale of your claims could be useful. By examining your claim to know something you couldn't possibly know you can learn something about the religious experience (of some people) through the lens of your own behavior. Or not, as you prefer. Again, not an evangelist here, just a wannabe philosopher. You say potato, I say potawto. You know the drill. :-)
Allow me an AMEN!
Your application has been approved. :-)
Really, I don't understand, how so? Or are you just trolling again LOL
In Christianity:
1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
4h
Logically, it says God existed.
It's the logic that says god is omniscient and yet benevolent; that he loves you and yet will send you to hell; that bread is flesh, wine is blood; that worships a zombie and encourages ritual cannibalism; that rejects abortion but will not help the needy; that ignores pedophilia in its institutions; that three are one; that rejects love if it is between a man and another man...
So why would anyone else pay it any attention?
Or to you?
Of course you don't, lil troll - that's why you wrote that false premise. :roll: Hint: More or less like the selections of canonical NT scriptures, The Nicene Creed was written declaring 'Jesus is "in part God"' only in order to appease the demands of a pagan emperor who, believing himself divine (i.e. avatar of Jupiter, Mithras or whatever) according to Roman tradition, could not make Christianity the official religion of the empire - and thereby be baptized into "the faith" - if the Christians' so-called "messiah" was only a "blessed", but not divine, human being, which had been an unsettled controversy for centuries since the earliest churches and congregational synods. True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours.
First you have to tell us what "God" is.
So did they add the story of the annunciation and the ascension etc?
Quite.
Indeed, the book of Revelation might be appropriate. Wisdom is something which isn't recognised in the modern world, but was of great importance in the past when peoples didn't have the extensive teachings available to us now. Even now wisdom is invaluable in steering our civilisation forward. Although we currently have a problem with our leaders who seem to have buried their heads up their own backsides rather than seek out wide council ( revelation indeed).
Yeah - propaganda, apologia, polemics ... marketing for fund-raising, etc.
What interests me is that the wisdom shared in the Adam and Eve story is credibly claimed to be of high quality. It depends of course on how one interprets that story, and there are many different interpretations, and no way to know for sure what meaning the original authors intended. That disclaimed, we can explore further.
PERSONAL: On the personal level of every day experience we can see that most of the time we are focused not on reality, but on our thoughts about reality. From the perspective of the story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are then banished from the real world Eden and confined to a significant degree to a much smaller arena of our own invention, the conceptual realm. We rule like gods over this conceptual realm between our ears, but it is a very small realm in comparison to "God's kingdom" ie. the real world.
SOCIAL: It's not hard to see that our relationship with knowledge is causing the modern world to careen towards some kind of coming Biblical scale calamity. From the perspective of the Genesis story, we have eaten the apple of knowledge and are about to expel ourselves from the Garden of Eden.
If one is willing to entertain such an interpretation of the Genesis story, we can ask how ancient authors could so accurately predict the future of humanity. I don't think we need god claims to explain this.
My theory is that the ancient authors had a profound understanding of the fundamental human condition, perhaps because they lived out in the desert in a tent and there was nothing else to do?
Point being, human beings haven't really changed much in 3,000 years so if one understands the human condition it should be possible to generally predict where that path will lead, even if one is unable to predict details such as climate change, nuclear weapons etc.
So, one can reasonably decline the fairy tale container the story comes in, but it might be a mistake to throw the insight baby out with the fairy tale bath water.
Instead of tossing the teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage aside with a lazy sweep of the hand, it might be more rational to work on translating the teachings out of fairy tale stories in to other forms which are more accessible to modern audiences.
Again, the paradigm here is art, not science. A novel can be interpreted in many different ways, and there is no way to definitely settle the question of which interpretation is best. That doesn't automatically equal the novel being crap.
A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that.
Sort of like the response to "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."
Don't "try to make him drink." Make him thirsty!
Mostly, what we have in this thread are people saying things motivated by their guesses on the question of whether there are any gods or not.
Some guess there is at least one god...and argue based on that.
Some guess there are none...and argue based on that.
Interesting arguments.
And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm.
Of no particular harm if one's goal is debating, which is probably usually the case here.
Going endlessly round and round on guess work claims that can never be proven or disproven might be labeled a kind of distraction harm if one's goal is to conduct an investigation.
That's not logic nor history, it's philosophy ( to put it nicely).
Hiding behind ad hominin only weakens your credibility there. The simple answer is, from the Christian Bible, Jesus was known to be God (and of course man/son of God). And so the syllogism still holds.
Not sure what all the fuss is about. Unless of course you're simply disgruntled over the truth about Christianity, not sure... .
I would be glad to, but this is more or less an atheist site and I was not told to quote Christian Scripture. It's definitely in there, I double checked... .
Think of it this way, as history reads, Jesus was crucified, in part, because at the time he was disliked and known to be the son of God.
And so, not sure what your argument is... . If you're saying one should not believe in history books, then make your case, I'd be more than happy to navigate that territory.
Why isn't this a syllogism (for reference)?
1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
I mean, it meets the basic criteria of; All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.
Alternatively, I'll be happy to re-arrange it, if you feel it isn't sound. For example, would proposition/premise one read better if I changed it to ' 1. Jesus was known as the son of God'. (?)
Really? I thought it recorded Christianity.
That would be irrelevant since "to quote scripture" does not corroborate the claims of scripture.
Whoa. :yikes: I gave you waaaaay too much intellectual credit, 3017. If you think the Christian Bible is a "history book", then ... ok. I'm done here, apologies for wasting your time and, especially, mine. :sweat:
:up:
There are no limits to how many premises a syllogism can have. The basic syllogism is three terms, but if you feel it commits a fallacy, I'd be happy to re-arrange them if you like!
Does quoting a history book corroborate history?
Hahaha, hiding behind ad hominin seems to substantiate my arguments.
:lol: :cry:
No argument? Oh well, I guess you've run out of options. Next atheist!
BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...
...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)
When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.
Aside from believing the truth's of a given history book (the Christian Bible), logical inference from cosmology, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science/consciousness, metaphysics, et. al. points to the concept of a God for its meaning.
Timmy! Cognitive science may help you with this phenomenon:
What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow.
Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer.
The question posed by theists and atheist in their debate is, does a god exist? The question assumes, typically without any questioning at all, that the only possible answers to the god question are yes or no, exists or not.
It seems neither side has bothered to examine the real world, which overwhelmingly consists of space at every scale. Does space exist? This question is impossible to answer in a yes/no manner because space has properties of both existence and non-existence. Any fair observer who has no dog in the god debate fight can see that the simplistic dualistic yes/no question being argued over in threads like this bears little resemblance to the vast majority of reality.
And, such a person can also see that very few passionate debaters seem to know this, or care about it at all. Observe for yourself. Now that this fatal conflict in the question itself is made known, watch how nothing will change. The male ego head butting contests on the subject of god will continue without interruption.
And not just here on this forum. Some of the greatest minds among us have been sucked in to this pointless dance for centuries. You are in good company. :-)
Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless. One reason is because over 75% of all philosophical domains invoke God as their respective criterion.
Similarly, have you read The Mind of God by theoretical physicist Paul Davies? I should get royalties, but it's a great read... .
I would agree that the debate has value in teaching us how ignorant we are. Well, in teaching those who are actually doing philosophy, and not just arguing to be arguing.
And then, having discovered our ignorance, we would have the option to explore how to benefit from it. But such a reality based investigation will be difficult to impossible so long as we are stuck inside a notion that we possess an answer.
...when it comes to Christian apologetics... , another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist. (Otherwise, I enjoy talking about God.)
Ok, sure. No mass or weight, no shape or form, no color or taste, invisible etc. That is, not complying with our usual definition of "exists". Nor does space comply with our usual definition of "not exists".
A key problem of the god debate is that it attempts to map simplistic dualistic concepts like "exists vs. not exists" which make perfect useful sense within the extremely limited realm of our daily human experience on to the very largest most fundamental questions about everything everywhere, the scope of most god claims.
The example of space should be teaching us that we can stretch the "exists vs. not exist" paradigm only so far before it starts to fall apart and become irrelevant. And once that happens, the God debate collapses in on itself, because that debate is typically totally dependent upon the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm.
In my view, the above is good news for real philosophers, but bad news for committed ideologues on all sides. Internet discussions are typically dominated by committed ideologues of various flavors, so such inconvenient reasoning is typically swept under the rug so that the food fight may continue.
Which is ok with me.
The following scientific diagram explains the details. :-)
Easy on the drugs, Tim. They fuck you up.
You do not get to tell me where I do not belong.
And my comment is correct.
But you don't like the fact that I call your nonsense "guesswork."
Tough.
One side is blindly guessing there are no gods.
One side is blindly guessing there is at least one god.
And you think one side is not almost certainly correct???
Think that over a bit.
What is the Bible then?
Funny, but I think this (Picasso's) diagram might be more appropriate:
1.Okay, good. And what was this edited collection about?
2. Do you mean the history of science?
Are you sure? I thought the Bible was an account of historical events that occurred in time, no?
Oh, and speaking of time, you might want to explain the phenomenon of Time after we get through the history lesson. But let's take one at a time, no pun intended.
That is nonsense.
My "whole argument" is exactly as stated:
[i]Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...
...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)
When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.[/i]
But...continue to flail and lose your cool. It is entertaining.
Yawn if you want.
What I said is so...and most of it applies to you.
So yawn away...and refuse to grow up.
At that, you will be a success.
Hint: if you go by Jefferson's edition then you'll be a little closer.
Accordingly, I wished the early church politicians would have included things like the lost gospel's information, Spinoza's, as well as the Gnostic wisdom! It's all about information and wisdom... !
Indeed. I have tried to make basically the same point on more than one occasion.
Humankind has existed in it's present form for, say, roughly 40K years. It's only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe/existence "works (I put works in quotes - I'm sure there's a better way of phrasing this.)
We discover the Big Bang less than 100 years ago. Likely we understand this stuff as much as an ant crossing a football field understands a false start (that's American football). To assume we are capable of any intelligent/discussion is at best futile.
What's worse is that throughout history wars have been fought to decide the outcomes of these discussions.
Indeed, religion gives God a bad name. In Christianity, I don't think Jesus was big on religion...
Aside from that, extremism in all forms, is usually the culprit. Not to mention the sin of the ego/pride...
Believe what, in a history book? You don't believe history? If not, which accounts of history should be vetted and why?
Okay, if you say so. I rest my case. Next issue?!
If you are asserting "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...
...YOU ARE JUST MAKING A BLIND GUESS. You are doing the atheistic version of "Credo in unum Deum..."
Pure and simply. Almost joke-like.
Atheists want to think they are more than that, but they aren't.
In fact theists have a much better argument against the "blind guess" comment, because they can always contend that a god has "revealed" itself to them. (I can make a guess on that...and my guess is that it is pure bullshit.) Any of them who are asserting "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods"...are simply making blind guesses also.
If you are asserting those things, Tim...you are just making a blind guess...and you do not have the honestly or integrity to acknowledge it.
Too bad for you.
Yep. Both far right-wing atheists and theists (extremists) think they have it all figured out. It's kind of sad but true.
Perhaps another reason why the secular concepts of Faith, Hope and Love are alive and kickin! People either have faith or hope about something they believe in … but what's Love got to do widdit :nerd:
No hope for gods...no hope for gaps.
What I wrote is correct. You should grow up and acknowledge that ANYONE asserting "there are no gods" or "there is at least one god" or that one scenario is more likely than the other...
...is just guessing.
Deal with that. Not the evasion crap.
there exists no such thing as bad philosophy, except plato's of course
Why is this troll still here? Why do the mods permit such shite to continue?
That's ironic, I thought the same thing concerning your lack of supporting evidence in your Atheistic belief system (existential, metaphysical, phenomenological, cognitive science, et.al.). LOL
Can you parse the logic for me? So far from history, Jesus,/God existed unless you tell me otherwise.
You guys! ARGGHH!! Total phoney baloney bull dookey! Fake news! Your mama is a dog!!!!
See how efficient this is? We can apply such proclamations to any argument by any person on any subject, a simple copy/paste operation which could be scripted to achieve full automation.
Now THAT's rational! :-)
Last time I checked the concern in the OP relates to positions on the arguments for God.
I presented existential, metaphysical, phenomenological and other questions about consciousness for which none of the atheists on this site have been able to answer
So far the evidence suggests at atheism is an untenable position to be in...
:lol:
If you're scared say you're scared :chin:
If your happy and you know it, clap your hands
Clap, clap
If your happy and you know it clap your hands
Clap clap
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, clap your hands
Clap clap
If your happy and you know it, stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, stomp your feet
Stomp, stomp
If your happy and you know it, pat your head
Pat, pat
If your happy and you know it pat your head
Pat, pat
If your happy and you know it, then your face will surely show it
If your happy and you know it, pat your head
Pat, pat
Quoting Banno
Shitz-n-giggles.
... and tall tales and imaginary friends.
Can you cite any cases where non-believers have murdered millions of people simply because they (the murdered people) did not share the non-believer's particular brand of non-belief?
And please don't bother mentioning situations where the murdering was done communists / socialists / fascists - these are all belief systems. E.g., Stalin did not murder millions in the name of atheism - he murdered them because he was a psychopathic killer.
What I'm looking for are situations where a group of atheists / agnostics / ignostics murdered large numbers of religious people in the name of atheism / agnosticism / ignosticism.
There aren't many people left following your exclusions, that sort of answers your question by default. On closer analysis I think you will find that most of the mass murderers were insane, so if they adopted religious views while carrying out their insanity that is not the fault of the religion.
On a more serious note what you have highlighted is the clash between the project of religion in human societies and the inevitable tribal, or nation conflict between different races, or civilisations. Religion in the distant past was always established (initially at least) to give some moral and social direction to populations, which could otherwise go down a path of feudalism, debauchery or going to war continually with its neighbour's. In more recent times when populations became larger and the spaces between them became smaller there was inevitably conflict and fundamentalist belief systems were employed as ways of turning populations against their enemies. Also religion became a means of controlling populations. By this point religion had got itself into allsorts of deep water through the application of human nature. Which was never the intention initially.
What is better is to point out the extent to which philosophers are complacent in simply accepting that the way life and experience, as had by people, is the normal, obvious result of certain chemical processes in physical bodies evolved in a material universe. Or as you say, that consciousness emerged from a piece of wood. This is complacent because it ignores the philosophical questions about our origins and consciousness, a conscious mind, which are unanswered. The lack of answers is dismissed as baseless, or wild speculation in areas which will be explained by science in the future.
Agreed. And the contradiction as well as the irony, is that the (metaphysical) sense of wonderment has not only contributed greatly to our quality of life in science, technology and humanities, but is absolutely essential in affecting same. Life without wonder would be... (?).
And so in turn it translates into a sense of ignorance that causes a person to dismiss that which provides a quality of life (for all people), regardless of their belief system. Thus one of the many existential paradoxes, in this case, for the atheist to resolve.
It's kind of sad, but as I've said before; pride, ignorance, ego, extremism, and other cognitive deficiencies relative to the finitude of existence (the human condition) , rears it ugly head more often than we care to admit. And too, as we know, that's certainly nothing new under the sun as it were. Those of us who appreciate all types of knowledge ( i.e., from the various domains of philosophy) also understand OT wisdom books are a good basic resource there... .
Most atheists seem to lack that simple concept associated with self-awareness. Perhaps another reason why nihilists are atheists...not sure. In any case that certainly speaks to another form of extremism.
Yes. And so what is the rational response to this place of ignorance (on questions of such enormous scale as gods) that we find ourselves in?
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? @Punshhh?)
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting tim wood
Well, and occasionally they were just told what to believe, and forgot they were told (or never grew up).
Say, the existential proposition "there is a flying vehicle" is unfalsifiable but verifiable.
The universal proposition "no vehicles can fly" is falsifiable but not verifiable.
(... with the implicit assumption that the domain of discourse is indefinite.)
So, when should we (not) expect proof?
We shouldn't be requesting or expecting proof until such time as human reason is proven relevant to and binding upon the question at hand.
Not sure of your point here.
What does your scenario have to do with what I have said?
, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread.
[sub](what to (not) believe, ..., The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps), solipsism, dream thought experiments, intangible hobs that can control the weather, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings, Last Thursdayism, ..., what about stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after his demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ...)[/sub]
What is there to misread?
Essentially, all I have said in this thread are variations of two things:
ONE:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...SO I DON'T.[/b]
That cannot be assailed or challenged in any way. I, Frank Apisa, do not know if any gods exist or not; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods CANNOT exist; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods MUST exist...and I, Frank Apisa, because I, Frank Apisa, do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...DON'T MAKE SUCH A GUESS.
TWO: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" "there are no gods" "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none"...is merely asserting a blind guess.
There is no way one can come to any of those conclusions via logic.
I challenge anyone who makes any of those assertions to show the logic via a syllogism.
I wish I had an answer to this question. And it's not merely religion. How do you talk to people who believe in these bizarre conspiracy theories, or deny global warming, etc, etc? It's very discouraging.
I can't answer for claims made by theists. Personally I don't make claims, or hold beliefs, so your line of argument doesn't appear to address someone in my position.
Agreed, but not what I was referring to. I'll try to be more clear....
1) If one is a believer, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to believe, and....
2) If one is a disbeliever, and then realizes one has no basis upon which to disbelieve, and...
3) One sees and faces one's incurable ignorance on subjects of such enormous scale, and...
4) Still is interested in god topics...
5) Then what?
Theism and atheism can both be reduced to rubble. As example, the question being asked "does god exist" can be shown to be useless by a simple examination of space, the vast majority of reality, which can not be clearly said either to exist or not-exist. A rational person who is at least a little bit serious will not expect a useful answer to arise from such a fatally flawed question.
Once theism and atheism are reduced to rubble some people will wash their hands of the entire subject and pursue other interests. Ok, that makes sense.
But what if after we've put theism and atheism in to their caskets, lowered them in to the ground, and shoveled dirt over them, we're still interested in the very largest of questions?
Then what?
:rofl:
Indeed. Yet another form of religion; religious extremism gives [a] God a bad name.
On the other hand here in America, we didn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Meaning, our commitment to Christian philosophy and religious freedom overwhelmingly enhances our quality of life. In other words, practically speaking, or in a philosophical pragmatic way, the pluses continue to outweigh the minuses.
But if Stalin had been a Catholic leading an explicitly Catholic regime, then you'd blame the slaughter on Catholicism. This is a very tired dodge, you can do better. No, I don't want to debate it, it doesn't rise to the level of meriting debate. Try again please.
I don't think a whole lot denies that there are unknowns. Surely I'm not omniscient, since otherwise I'd know that I were.
Wanting to eff the ineffable and make it into a religion no less, is already striding too far from what was already asserted.
With reasoning ruled out, evidence ruled out, human abilities ruled out, ..., there isn't a whole lot left, not epistemic anyway.
Perhaps there's a kind of "spirituality" in embracing "the unknown" after a fashion, yet that's about one self (not "otherworldly" sentient almighty super-beings).
Besides, this is a far cry from the (vast) majority of religions, elaborate religious faiths that people declare in public (with a lot of social consequences), that they declare apply to all of us, heck everything for that matter (the universe pales in comparison it seems). And, if I'm understanding your sentiment (which I probably don't), they also declare that you're wrong.
We could translate this idea in to atheist language if that helps.
Atheists believe in facing reality. The reality is that, on issues the vast scale of gods, we are ignorant. So it would be compliant with atheist culture to embrace this ignorance. It would be rational to accept this situation which we can currently do nothing about, and look for ways to benefit from it.
If a miner digs a mine looking for gold, but finds only coal, the rational miner will ask, "Where can I sell this coal?" Columbus hoped to find the Far East, but instead found the Americas. He could have turned back and given up in failure, or he could proceed to plunder the Americas.
We conducted an investigation hoping to find an answer, but instead found our ignorance. An irrational person will live in a wishful thinking fantasy by pretending that they have found an answer, while the rational person will accept the results of the investigation and work to put what has been discovered to good use. Did we find what we hoped to find? No. But we did find something. What can we do with what we have discovered?
Atheists base their world view on observation of reality. Observation of reality reveals that the overwhelmingly vast majority of reality is what we usually call nothing. Nothing is the absence of a physical something, whereas ignorance is the absence of an answer, a mental something. Both physical somethings and mental somethings are at heart just data. Ignorance bears a striking resemblance to most of reality.
Atheists believe in being rational. It is rational to worship reality, not because reality requires our worship, but because the emotional experience of worship enriches our lives. And reality is mostly nothing so we can worship nothing, both physical nothing, and it's partner mental nothing.
Many atheists will reject the word worship, the experience of worship, and emotion more generally. This is because they are still TRAPPED inside a holy war with religious culture which they aren't yet rational enough to realize they can never win, because like everyone else, they are ignorant. Rejecting positive emotions which can enrich our lives is not rational or manly, but is instead merely weak, fearful and cowardly.
There is plenty for any "spiritual" atheist to explore, discover and enjoy, should they be rational enough to surrender their fantasy knowings and embrace the overwhelming reality of nothing.
Quoting jorndoe
Agreed, but so what?
I'm not following the logic here. If you accept 1 thru 3 - and have thus accepted the fact that the sentence "God Exists" has no coherent meaning - then why are you still interested in "god topics'?
If you acknowledge that you are incurably ignorant about a topic, then move on and find some new interests.
Perhaps I have not explained myself well.
When the topic of religious persecution comes up and non-believers (such as myself) point out that no one has ever been killed in the name of atheism or agnosticism, religious folks will try to counter and say "Oh yeah? What about Stalin & Mao?"
I simply wanted to nip that line of "reasoning" in the bud. The depredations of Stalin & Mao had nothing to do with religion.
Getting back to religious persecution, of course things are much more complex than that. No one is ever murdered merely in the name of religion. Religious persecution is always tied in with politics, prejudice, and the desire to rule over and manipulate people. You might even want to make the claim that religion has merely provided a convenient fig leaf to conceal other motives. I won't argue that - but merely point out that it is a very powerful fig leaf capable of motivating entire nations to go to war and commit mass murder.
You haven't succeeded in that project, though I do look forward to hearing your thoughts on other topics.
You're perhaps not following the logic because you are still stuck in the God debate. If we accept the reality of our ignorance then just as the claim "god exists" has no meaning, the statement "god doesn't exist" also has no meaning. Your position didn't just win, it is as defeated as the theist position.
Quoting EricH
That is one option, yes, and I have no argument with anyone who chooses it. But as your own participation in such threads would seem to demonstrate, some of us don't wish to walk away. Which raises the question, now what?
My argument is that the investigation doesn't need to end just because we didn't find what we were looking for. I hope the following might help a bit.
The God debate is built upon some nearly universally agreed upon, but rarely examined, assumptions which can be inspected and challenged.
As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm. This suggests that the question being asked may be so poor that no useful answer can emerge from it, ie. we are ignorant.
Another assumption blindly shared by both theists and atheists is that the point of the investigation should be to find an answer, some collection of symbols which accurately represent reality. Most people just accept this methodology as being the appropriate course of action without questioning it the least little bit. We can choose to question it.
Dropping an exploration we seem clearly interested in because we didn't find what we were looking for would be like Columbus giving up because he didn't find the Far East. Imagine him saying, "This isn't the Far East, so I give up, I quit, I'm going home, forget about the whole thing." And by doing so, leaving the Americas unexplored.
Rational?
Aside from simply asserting it, you have given no explanation for for the lack of success.
Quoting define atheism
Jedi are supposedly atheists, albeit of a rather odd sort.
Quoting Hippyhead
'cuz no manner of human fabulation makes it so; rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.
The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).
Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.
I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.
But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism
- - - - - - - - - -
BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East.
Already explained why. You're on your own with that one.
Honestly, and no offense intended, I find this kind of dodging and weaving tiresome. 50 billion threads on the Internet, including countless threads on this forum alone, have argued whether a god exists or not, yes or no.
As to what religious people think, there are billions of them and they think all kinds of things, way too many to even big to list.
You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.
I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.
And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.
"I do not know" makes lots of sense.
"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.
At least, as I see it.
Words have meaning & usages.
You - Frank Apisa - have your own unique definition/usage of the word "god(s)". Under your definition, "god(s)" refers a hypothetical entity or entities that is/are part of the material universe. However - much as an ant has no conception of what is happening when you step on it's nest - we human beings cannot perceive them. However, given that your "god(s)" are part of the material universe, then at least potentially they can be investigated, measured, etc.
Under this definition, your little "guessing" formula works, and I have the same opinion you have - no reason to guess one way or the other.
But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).
We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.
Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile:
Not so at all. Certainly not through history. The many early gods were not that at all.
Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29
Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."
Quoting EricH
Very jaded view there, Eric. I hope it is not the reality for you.
Are there other sentient beings in our universe? Are there other dimensions to our existence? Do unicorns exist? Does the dominant life form on most planets have the means to fly like birds...or are most land bound? Are there any gods...or are there none? Do thoughts have a physical component?
At best you might say, "These are things that do not interest me."
To say considerations about them are wasted time...goes a bit too far for me.
Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).
You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.
And you have explicitly rejected this notion.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble.
You are engaging in the "when the facts do not suit your argument, pretend the facts are wrong."
The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically.
If you want to pretend it doesn't...fine with me. Pretend away.
Nah. I think "jaded" works better here.
Sorry Frank - you've got this wrong.
The God of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam resides in a spiritual realm. He can intervene in the physical world. After all, it's his creation - he can do any damn thing he pleases with it. But he existed (whatever that means) in his spiritual realm before he created the physical world - and our eternal souls go to this spiritual realm after we die. And after the final judgement the physical world will cease to exist (at least according to many interpretations).
The "existence" of a non-physical world/realm is the key distinguishing factor that makes a belief system a religion. I'm not talking about your interpretation of the word "god" here - I'm taking about what the billions of religious people believe.
Again - don't take my word for it - check with a religious person - or go to any of the religious web sites. They will confirm this.
Anyway - we've looped around this point enough. Last word is yours if you want it.
I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. If I understand correctly (i may not) he is agreeable to the validity of the question, so long as it is answered as he prefers.
It seems to me there is an important difference between being atheist to theist claims, and being "atheist" to the God debate itself.
Also in that instance, God could be seen by the masses descending onto the mountain as a giant fiery cloud making noise with lights flashing around it.
God's voice walked with Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden, and a voice requires physicality.
Jacob wrestled with God in the desert and said "I have seen the face of God and lived". Many Christians would argue that this was an angel or Jesus, but that's not what the book says and is speculation.
Jesus was God in human form, and the 3 aspects of God are inseparable. The Christians who argue that this is not true are a very, very small minority.
These are just a few examples.
Also...heaven is ascribed earthly measurements and qualities which are physical. It's like a giant cube with streets of gold, etc. Also...the new Jerusalem exists on Earth after God destroys the world, and this is where God resides in person forever with the chosen 144,000 Jews.
That is pretty much the opposite of my position. Obviously I have not communicated. It is the sentence/question itself that is incoherent.
I'll elaborate - maybe this will help - or maybe it will muddy the waters further :smile:
In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.
"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."
We all recognize that under the standard definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences - they do not express a coherent thought.
The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.
One school of thought basically says - and using a Star Trek reference - "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.
The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.
I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.
- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions/usages of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -
With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.
So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.
So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence? I say no. The question is a nonsense sentence.
Um, in your reply you demonstrated that my understanding of your position was correct. You clearly believe that a god does not exist, thus you believe the question "does God exist" to be a valid question.
You argument is with a particular answer to the question, not with the question itself.
If you found the question itself to be invalid, then you would have no preferred answer to that question. As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?
Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?
Is it not POSSIBLE that there exists things that humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way?
And can you appreciate the impact of the answer to that question on your arguments?
Quoting whollyrolling
Agreed. I don't know why Eric needs to know whether you are a religious person or not. It indeed seems irrelevant. They are words in a history book.
The 'belief' component relates to whether one should believe in the history book's account of history, or disbelieve it. In the case of the Christianity, of course, early church politics; translation errors, lost gospels, excluded books (Spinoza's and Gnostic teachings), different religions excluding books (Sirach is omitted from the Baptist Bible) ad nauseum (not to mention allegory/ metaphor), simply means the book is fallible. Aren't many history books subject to fallibility?
And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. Doesn't seem too intuitive or sophisticated does it... . Extremist Fundy's/Atheists indeed share a great sense of ignorance.
The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe.
I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love.
Excellent point about love. In Christianity, Jesus was basically a pacifist and was mostly about spreading love. And what is love but yet another mystery anyhow. How can the atheist deny mystery. They cannot even explain love itself, but somehow can explain no-God. Again, not very intuitive, sophisticated and frankly, very ignorant.
But back to the Fundy/Atheist similarities. I'll just summarize by saying living life is not A or B; it's both A and B. Consciousness is both consciousness and subconsciousness working together (Freud would add in the unconscious). In fact, the poor atheist cannot even explain consciousness...for shame for shame sargent.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it -
Quoting Frank Apisa
That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.
Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component.
Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does.
If you have answered that question multiple times, Eric, you've not done a very good job of it.
In any case, if you have answered it "in the affirmative" then you agree that if there are things that are "supernatural"...they are merely things that we humans do not understand...that we cannot perceive.
Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."
You agree we humans do not know everything about REALITY...and we certainly may not be able to understand or identify everything...
...so if there are gods, there are gods whether we humans can "understand" them or not.
Why are you not seeing that.
I resent you supposing I am outside "the rest of humanity."
And the preponderance of humans who have existed on this planet have NOT supposed that gods have some "supernatural" component...although even if they did, what we would be saying is that gods have some components that WE HUMANS DO NOT UNDERSTAND.
Big deal. The cosmos has that as part of its being...and we do not deny the existence of the cosmos.
Once again you want to define me as being uniquely outside of "the rest of humanity."
WTF?
Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:
Quoting Frank Apisa
And here is your latest definition.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Eric...not sure of what kind of game you are playing here...or why you are playing it. I see no contradictions in what I have said...here or in any other of my thousands of posts on this issue in several different fora devoted to the question of the OP.
Space is not empty.
I am trying to respond to your questions as truthfully & accurately as possible within the limits of my capabilities - and it will help me to understand the context of your questions.
My guess is that you are Christian and believe in the Bible, but I want to make sure. If you are an atheist/agnostic I would respond very differently.
Your assumption is incorrect. "does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?" is not a question - it is a meaningless jumble of undefined words.
Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".
Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense.
Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. Other spacetime philosophy perspectives such as relationism or super-substantivalism split ways with this but while one is emergent from another spacetime still would exist in some manner. In other words even a modern day physicalist would or could add spacetime to their ontology without issue though its truer ontological virtue is rather unclear.
Why do you indulge him when he seems to intentionally ignore that an anecdotal (perhaps second to even third hand or more) stories relaying true facts about the world (Jerusalem, pontius pilot, etc) can still obviously have them interspersed with rather elaborate special natural phenomenon (miracles) that have never been suspected to occur nor have ever occurred again. That the dubious metaphysical claims about the real world made in the text is what were confounded by just flies right over his head?
Yes, I hear you. Here's an accessible documentary which goes in to considerable detail on the subject.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPv8zApee0&t=58s
I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect.
What I suspect is happening is that we're trying to map a simplistic "exists or not" paradigm which is perfectly reasonable at human scale on to the very largest of scales, and doing so rather blindly.
Another obstacle is that commentators on the god question are typically so laser focused on promoting their preferred answer that they typically have little time or energy left over for inspecting the question they are attempting to address.
Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.
Here is my agnosticism:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.
Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?
The problem with descriptors is that one almost always has to define what one means when using the descriptor.
I occasionally use the descriptor "agnostic."
When I do, what I mean is:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
If you don't understand that...perhaps this is not the thread for you.
No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing. It contains inherent geometrical properties and perhaps is even affected by the relations of matter or the energy/momentum content within it. Nothingness is the absence of any properties. Either it exists distinctly from matter or it's an emergent property of matter that arises from it. In either case it isn't nothing.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Most philosophers? Either they didn't know of such a position or they actively were involved, or loosely, in the god discussion so then they acknowledged they knew what they were talking about. At that point they were not ignostics anymore but agnostic, atheist, theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theists, defacto atheists, etc. It's all word games until you let the other person talk. But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't?
If god is a meaningless term then so is the question, does god exist? God isn't meaningless? Then we can actually discuss its veracity/probable likelihood to exist, contains a contradiction so therefore cannot, or is deistic so we literally could never know it exists. Or we substituted the word god for other terms (god is all of existence) so we didn't actually disagree at all but had a non-discussion.
We cannot discuss whether something exists or not...if you have no idea about what your saying is that doesn't/does exist. Once you define your terms and it's no longer language games then were both make the transition from ignostic to any of the usual positions taken.
I am not playing any games. I have been trying to understand your positions, to attempt to put them in my own words, and to explain where our differences lie.
It is obvious that I have failed spectacularly in that attempt. I apologize if I have given offense - none was ever intended.
:clap: :ok:
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. :grin:
Why thank you.
Yes, most philosophers.
Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.
What are you talking about???
Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is?
If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum?
Quoting Frank Apisa
This is non-cognitivism. At least with respect to religious discussions but because its focus seems to be in terms of language philosophy it could be readily applied to other areas of philosophy. Here is a video also on the concept about some guy discussing said concept in reply to another. Because ignosticism is so closely in line (if not exactly the same) as the previous concept you saying using such a label is devoid of meaning made me think you would readily apply the same sentiment to theological non-cognitivism as well. Was going to give a link but that didn't work on my phone so I apologize for that straw-man.
I'll just add that ignosticism is similar to agnosticism, atheism, or theism in all their varied definitions as these are all usually tentative positions. If I recall, some make the distinction between strong or weak agnostics in which a weak agnostic is one in which they personally have no belief/evidential leaning one way or the other on a particular conception of god. Strong agnostics, however, either on all gods or particular gods would claim it's impossible to ever know a god truly does exist. It's conceivable that a militant strong agnostic (sounds funny) could shut down a discussion before one even begins by saying smugly "you can't know a god does/doesn't exist". Just as easily as you may think an ignostic/non-cognitivist would also attempt to do but note that just as an agnostic is one who holds their position in epistemological virtue of being open minded (openly admitting their ignorance of opinion) about being convinced such a entity exists an ignostic cannot even discuss the issue until (philosophy 101) you have coherently defined the concept in question.
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.
No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.
Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.
No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.
The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.
If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?
What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.
You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum.
It does seem like a cop out. I looked up the difference between ignosticism and agnosticism and basically it follows thus:
Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
So they both don't know.
Or:
Theist: I believe a God exists (and everything is figured out)
Atheist: I don't believe God exists (and everything is figured out)
Or in another alternative, you can be like me :snicker:
Christian Existentialist: The logic and nature of human existence is not known and quite absurd; the preponderance of evidence tips the scales in favor of Deity/God.
I didn't say god...I said gods.
I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.
Neither do you.
But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.
You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.
There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question.
I've given mine. Here it is again:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.
Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing.
You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it.
How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh?
My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc.
What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe.
The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers.
If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility.
The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .
Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?
If so, tell me/us what that is.
Quoting 3017amen
You have correctly identified the agnostic position, but an ignostic would never say this.
Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts".
If I were to say to you "I don't know if Granwtyrt grimoooqts or doesn't grimoooqts" you would be perfectly justified in asking me WTF I'm talking about.
It would be up to me to provide you with reasonably clear definitions/usages of "Granwtyrt" and "grimoooqts" - AND - I'd also have to explain what it means for "Granwtyrt" & "grimoooqts" to appear in the same sentence.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession?
I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.
1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?
2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?
I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No?
In this context, your epistemic evasion is nihilism, because there is something instead of nothing.
And as such, you have faith and belief in nihilism.
I don't know what this god is that you speak of could you define what that is with clear attributes, no semantics, equivocations, contradictions, assert that you can read the minds of every other believer/religious person knowing then what they exactly mean by god, or supposedly declare your definition the one and only compared to many others. God by some is an equivocation of well known terms, a personal but rather strange conscious individual, or a role model to aspire to. To some he is separate from the universe others identical to the cosmos in some manner while, further, others declare him separate but still intervenes from time to time. Some (process philosophy) put him square in time (so to speak) as he changes along with the rest of us while others declare he is at the utmost core to his extremities forever unchanging. You cannot expect me to understand you fully when you tell me you believe in god without a definition of said concept or whether there is even really a discussion to be had for its existence.
"Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism?" I investigated what other philosophers or people had to say about it or what it was defined as then realized that it fully covered (semantically) a state of mind about the discussion when I have no definition of god (none are presented or are coherently established) to be atheistic, agnostic (strong/weak), or theistic towards. Perhaps you and the other individual i've conversed here with do not understand that god means something different to every person whether that difference is largely useless in relation to its greater ontological status or they see it in a completely different ontological category.
Quoting Hippyhead
So our ability to tell whether something exists or not is if we could put on a human made scale? Tell me, how much does the Earth weigh? It's a trick question because for something to have weight (the normal force of an object must impress up to you against the force of gravity) the Earth would have to be pressed up against something. . . but the Earth is definitely not nothing. . . why?
Quoting Hippyhead
There are no characteristics of non-existence because for something to be non-existent it has to lack every property/relation. Further, yes, it exists whether its an inseparable cognitive faculty (Kant if I recall), its an emergent property of material systems (relationism), or its a substance in its own right (substantivalism) which perhaps even makes up what physical objects are (super-substantivalism). For something to have mass it must possess a resistance to being accelerated but photons seem to always move at the speed of light so therefore classically do not possess this sort of mass (or rest mass). Shape or form are dependent on our cognitive faculties to assess to a certain extent while color assumes (via known sciences) that the object in question emits a sort of radiation which spacetime does not. Though, there exists gravitational lensing/gravitational redshift which (together with the new found geodesics) give light different paths/wave lengths so it does effect them. Weight is dependent on gravitational interaction and the ability of another object to resist said force with equal but opposite normal force which cannot be replicated with photons but i'm assuming you think such objects clearly exist.
Quoting Hippyhead
Might not? If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. Rinse and repeat having new models thrown at the wall to the point that they break then construct a new model that doesn't break that soon. At the moment a substantivalist model of spacetime or at least one that uses local energy/momentum distributions to determine the local geometry (thusly our geodesics) rather closely models reality while possessing inconsistencies on other scales or issues inherent in the mathematics that a better model would need to explain/encompass.
Quoting Hippyhead
Yes, so if you tell me god exists/doesn't exists and then I ask you to give a definition. . . don't throw a temper tantrum but give me a coherent definition.
Quoting Hippyhead
It could be or could not be but many people keep talking about god like they absolutely know what it's with various traditional/non-traditional definitions. Is it meaningless? Perhaps near the end of your life after debating this topic or conversing with various people on the existence of said entity you could make that assessment for yourself just as easily as I could when that time comes.
The vague definitions are for epistemic evasion. Do you call those definitions nihilism?
What? You give a definition of god (a coherent one) then the sentence (does god(s) exist?) suddenly attains meaning or coherency.
It wasn't incoherence simpliciter that contributed to my TENATIVE position of ignosticism but rather that you or others perhaps fail to give a definition of god or a definition that doesn't remain coherently understandable.
Do you not understand that if you convinced a person that god does exist (given a definition) then if they started out as an agnostic (weak one) then they would honestly truthfully move over to take on the label of theist. The discussion needs grounding (well defined terms) before we can move from the ignostic to any of the other many positions you could take regarding your belief/knowledge level regarding such an entity.
Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you?
Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown?
It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they?
Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?
Does that sound right?
Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said.
Sure. For an atheist it would be (assuming many default to nihilism) because there is a denial of something rather than nothing.
Is it a particular conception of god with predefined attributes? Then yes i'll take position(s) on it. Is it god without any predefined attributes? Then it sounds rather incoherent to me because what does it mean to say such and such exists if none of us know what it's or understand it.
Quoting 3017amen
Even agnostics can indulge in discussions of the properties of deities or whether they are coherent or not. Nothing stops them from doing that even though their real position on the issue is that such an entity is to remain unknowably non-existent/existent to them. For an ignostic then it would be a journey to meet someone through which an actual discussion can be had given a well put collection of definitions for the terms used. Other ignostics could not indulge in any discussion at all being rather militant or avoidant of such debates. . . people are people. . . I have a feeling you understand that.
Quoting 3017amen
Again, Evolution doesn't require everything that an organism possesses or does to be 100% beneficial only that it's able to get from birth to reproduction generally without much issue with particular factions doing that better or worse. Neutral mutations or beneficial mutations exist just as much and are consistent with Evolution as detrimental mutations are which is the same with traits or evolved behaviors.
Further, why are you advocating for barring people (ignostics and agnostics) from having these discussions?
Quoting 3017amen
Do you have a coherent concept of god that you will give with accompanying properties?
Quoting 3017amen
It isn't coherent to ask me "does ___ exists?" and never give me a word to substitute into there with accompanying meaning that you and I understand then such a thing to be or whether if it was inserted in the sentence it even makes coherent sense to ask the question. Undecided would be a weak agnostic position while saying that the question/word for the "entity" is ill-defined/incoherent/indeterminate then, until you give a proper definition of said enity, ignosticism is what i'll hold to which is what i've been saying this whole time. If you could point out where I flip flopped positions then please tell me and i'll change that?
I'm not saying the concept of god is always and forever will be with even a definition entirely incoherent thusly not warranting discussion. That is a cop out position but literally asking you for a coherent definition of terms is the start to every philosophical debate ever had but if the terms are not given then the what was it that was to be debated? Nobody would know and it would drift off into obscurity asking who did better in a debate that couldn't be had or what your own positions was on a debate that no one knew anything about.
I feel like this is similar to a creationist asking an atheist why they debate on religion so much despite the fact that they either know a god doesn't exist or that they do not know exists so they disbelieve. Some atheists may take this direction and leave religion alone but for others such debates hold different values to different people (I know it's hard for you to understand that people feel different things). For some they truthfully want to be convinced a god exists but constantly have their hopes dashed for others it's more a question of convincing others that said entity doesn't exist/doesn't warrant the belief in its existence. For some it's frustrating to see others believe in false things so they seek to convince them of what they see as true while others take it as a moral proclamation if they sadly identify religion to be synonymous with anti-vaxxers, creationists, cults, oppressive regimes, or homophobia. So then convincing people towards agnosticism/atheism suddenly becomes the same as taking down these sorts of issues.
There are further reasons that accompany this but you would have to actually (I know this is a tall order) perhaps ask why people indulge in these discussions.
I am not having a difficult time understanding ignosticism. I have majors in economics, philosophy, and religion. Unfortunately for the kind of discussion you seem determined to have, I got my degree almost 60 years ago...so lots of the particulars are no longer at my fingertips. You will understand that if, and when, you grow up.
You are essentially coming into a discussion of theories or positions on the "gods' question...and saying, "Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless."
Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here?
Okay?
I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing.
I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense.
I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position.
I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T.
There is MY AGNOSTICISM.
You know what it is. I've stated it several times.
Here it is again:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
YOU tell ME if there is "an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of " it.
Then YOU tell ME what it is. And after you have, you might tell me why you would want to know something like that.
The obsession...the worship part of religion is the part that always turns me off.
Making a guess that gods were involved with how this thing we humans call "the universe" came into being (if it in fact came into being) is as good as any other guess about the question. But then supposing the gods have to be worshiped pops up...and disgusts me.
Any "god" that would want to be worshiped...IS NOT WORTH WORSHIP.
Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." They have invented qualifiers...and other words to make it seem more scientific and logical to blindly guess that there are no gods than to blindly guess there is at least one.
They are laughable in that, because blind guesses that there are no gods are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one.
Allow me to repeat that: Blind guesses that there is no creating agency (are no creating agencies) to what we humans claim exists...are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one creating agency. And if there are creating agencies...they are as much a part of nature as the creation we puny humans call "the universe and everything in it."
Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about...and that guesses about it are fun (even a delight), but not of much use.
If it makes you comfortable to speak like that of someone discussing the subjects we are discussing...go for it. I want you to feel as comfortable as you can being yourself.
Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.
The topic of this thread is "What are your positions on the arguments for God?" You seem to be arguing that God exists - thus it is up to you to provide an explanation that makes some sense. What do you mean by "exists"?
But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction.
No matter... , but for me in this context, my beliefs are many, and they trump all atheist arguments based upon all of the 'philosophical domains'. For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like.
180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL
Atheists tend to lose their cool very easily...especially when discussing matters with an agnostic.
Oh well!
Now you're getting it. The "does god exist" question doesn't model reality very well. The vast majority of the time that question seeks a simple yes/no answer. The example of space illustrates that reality is rather more complicated than such a simplistic yes/no, exists or not paradigm. And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers.
Or, we of course have the option to continue to endlessly repeat the same old arguments for another 500 years in order to arrive at a destination we already inhabit.
I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange.
It does...except to people who have blindly guessed that "reality" is what they say it is and have guessed it to be a model where the "do any gods exist" question doesn't does not fit in.
That claptrap is a travesty to anyone able to manage their way through Philosophy 101.
The "god question"...is integral to the "What is this all about" question...which is the spine and brain of philosophy.
The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. Or at least ashamed enough not to pollute a forum dedicated to philosophic discourse.
Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence.
Oh, the narcissism.
Agreed, much better philosophically, but seen as much worse by all those whose personal identity depends on them having an answer which is superior to somebody else's answer. So let's address that agenda, given that it tends to dominate philosophy forums.
The theist gets to pretend they are superior to atheists, and atheists get to pretend they are superior to theists. In both cases, the pretender can only position themselves above a limited number of people.
The agnostic however can pretend they are superior to BOTH theists AND atheists. From a purely ego calculation point of view, which is what's underway most of the time on philosophy forums, the agnostic position is clearly more logical, as it delivers the fantasy superiority experience much more efficiently.
I've already been thinking about it for over 20 years. Your turn! :-)
No offense, but you've not actually addressed my claim at all, but just further fueled the Agnostic Holy War against the theist and atheist infidels. :-)
With a bit of reluctance which would take to long (a path too arduous to travel) to explain...
...I AGREE, Hippy.
Let me rephrase this QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT YOUR POSITION in a way that anyone who's not even as 'smart' as YOU could easily answer:
:chin:
No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent.
Quoting 3017amen
Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God.
I'm 84...and been considering my position for probably 60 of those years, writing op eds and letters to editors of newspapers and magazines for decades...so I understand your feelings here.
Okay, "my turn" would point out that you are suggesting on the one hand that "throwing the question out" would be a reasonable alternative for dealing with it...and on the other, that we give "critical scrutiny as the competing answers."
Competing answers to "throwing the question out?"
Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically."
No doubt my replies are influenced by the fact that I am convinced that the "agnostic position"...especially as I articulate my agnostic position...(I "disagree" with many supposedly agnostic positions as strongly as I "disagree" with theistic or atheistic positions)...is the best position to take on the issue. Not unreasonable, considering I suppose most people, strong atheists, weak atheists, strong agnostics, weak agnostics, theists, ignostics) are at their position because they suppose it to be the "best position" to take. (Lots of agnosticism in that paragraph.)
If I have "not actually addressed" your claim at all...that must be because I am missing the "claim' you are making. I feel I have addressed everything you've put out.
If there is a specific "claim" you want to make...make it as clearly as you can and I will give it more consideration and response.
Quoting EricH
If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ??
Quoting EricH
Nope. One, it's incoherent according to you and two, Jesus was known to be part God.
Not sure what your point is... ?
You are really acting like an asshole, but even assholes deserve a response, so...
You are asking me what makes "my agnostic claim" true:
Okay...first, here again is my agnostic claim:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
Now...I will question the world's foremost authority on what I know and suspect:
Q: Are you the world's foremost authority on what Frank Apisa knows, thinks, supposes, guesses, and so forth.
R: I am, indeed. I am Frank Apisa.
Q: Okay! Does Frank know if gods exist or not?
R: Not in any way. NO. Definitely he does not.
Q: Does Frank see any reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...or that the existence of gods is impossible?
R: He does not. Not in any way. As far as Frank is concerned, it is POSSIBLE that gods , or even one god, does exist.
Q: Thank you. And does Frank see any reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...or that at least one god is needed to explain existence"
R: Nope. Not in any way.
Q: Great. Just two more questions. Does Frank see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on the question of whether any gods exist or not?
R: Not a single piece of unambiguous evidence in either direction to make such a "meaningful guess."
Q: And my final question: Does Frank make such a guess anyway>
R: No...he does not.
Still going strong, Antidote!
Hello angry atheist!
Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:
[i]Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.[/i]
Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .
Just trying to help Frank
Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.
Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL
Yes, it's been a long investigation for sure. What this long investigation has revealed is that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything. We seem to agree on this.
When thousands of years of investigation led by some of the greatest minds among us fails to reach the goal of delivering a credible answer, it seems reasonable to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. That's what I'm attempting to do.
One of the assumptions of the God debate, that nearly everyone on all sides agrees on, is that the goal of the investigation should be to deliver an answer, a knowing, a concept, a mental symbol, which accurately reflects the real world it is attempting to describe. Even agnostics agree with this goal, they just don't feel it has been reached.
What if the assumption that we should be seeking an answer is wrong? That might explain why the longest investigation in human history has failed. Maybe the answer seeking methodology which we've all just assumed to be correct should be set aside and replaced with other ways of approaching the god topic.
Before someone types "like what?" please first answer the following.
1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?
2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?
3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested?
The fact that Jesus as a person may have existed is irrelevant. Billions of people have existed throughout history.
Quoting 3017amen
And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"?
If I were to say to you "Jesus was know to be part poiuyt" you would be justified in asking me for a definition of "poiuyt".
By asking for a definition of God we are assuming that God is a "thing", some phenomena which is separate and distinct from other phenomena and thus describable with a definition.
It may be helpful to observe that the vast majority of reality, space, so infuses everything at every scale that it is hard to describe space as a phenomena separate and unique from other phenomena. So, to some degree at least, it is possible for a phenomena to be present and yet not really be definable.
That's correct, and history has recorded same!
Quoting EricH
A God who designed consciousness.
I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.
Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.
What more do you want?
Okay, let me answer your questions.
#1: YES
#2: YES
#3: I did not answer "NO" to either question.
Ok Frank, thanks for playing. Well if you feel you have an answer, or a method of finding one, then you don't need an alternative. Go for it, and good luck.
Never said nor was being an ignostic defined as god is inherently always meaningless and not worthy of discussion. . . wow that strawman was easy to spot. I've said that ignosticism is basically, you don't give a definition (or one that is even the slightest coherent) then it isn't going to make sense to ask what position I take on it regarding said entities existence. Rather, until YOU give a coherent definition of god i don't have much of a reason to say I'm agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards it because. . . what is it I'm sure I know doesn't exist/does exist/or am possessing ignorance towards.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Because ignosticism or agnosticism (strong) are not equivalent to saying every discussion of god regardless of context is doomed to fail (we can never know a god exists so stop discussing) or is meaningless. Ambivalence or avoidance isn't baked into those definitions of ignosticism or agnosticism something which you and 3017amen really think fit to suppose.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Every philosophical conversation is worthless UNTIL you define your terms coherently then were on our way. Literally this whole time I've been defending a tenative position here that is equivalent to philosophy 101 in a discussion/debate/argument. . . define your terms and in a manner that both participants understand what they mean then conversation can continue.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I kept going in earnest it would be fine to leave it generalized but in all honesty I never saw your god definition given to me so we could discuss it then move on.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Why you just described my side on the issue. . . partially. . . but some still desire labels to associate with or designate themselves while a label is a jumping off point it isn't a specific argument to be presupposed.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Depends on what your definition of god is?
C'mon, Hippy. Let's continue to play. (Thanks for that comment earlier. I got the message.)
I do have an answer to the god question...and I have given it several times.
Let's get off the "god question" for a second.
Consider these two questions instead:
1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?
2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)
What would your answers be?
Never supposed we did as ignosticism can be taken to be rather tenative dependent on properly defined terms or context. To throw out the discussion would mean holding a position that NO ONE can make sense of god even if you tried. . .which isn't what I've defined ignosticism as here.
Quoting 3017amen
Never said I was angry more confused then frustrated because as other posters made note of, you seemed to intentionally "obscure the conversation avoiding giving definitions or even seemingly gish galloping".
Quoting Frank Apisa
I'll continue to hold that position until YOU give a coherent definition of god to me. I can't discuss god simpliciter only what one thinks a god should be or defines it as. . . remember there are thousands or religions with varying perspectives on god that may not even overlap. Am I to. . . regardless of context be. . . agnostic to every god ever even though some definitely don't exist while others are defined as such that they do.
Quoting 3017amen
Until a definition is given or context, which if were to have read the rest of his post he does note that, but when a definition (coherent one) and context is given then we can move on from discussing "god" to discussing god. From "what is god?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism.
Quoting 3017amen
What is this god you speak of?
Quoting 3017amen
But how do you support that jesus is god. What was you definition of god again? This is literally the easiest then to do so you will definitely do it in your next reply for everyone to then move on.
You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition.
Oh okay.
God is consciousness.
Sorry, not following that one.
Quoting substantivalism
In Christianity, it's Jesus.
Quoting substantivalism
It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man.
Awesome. And of course, only you know you!!!!
180 must be doing either a spin on that one, or he's drinking his frustrations away LOL
This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!
Sure...
Quoting 3017amen
Yes so god is only human.
Quoting 3017amen
People have mentioned jesus before in texts, yes.
Quoting 3017amen
God is just a word for human consciousness got it.
Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question!
We seem to be in agreement on certain things.
Quoting Hippyhead
I believe we both answer no to these questions.
But you seem fixated on on this space thing. Not sure how to help you here. Space is part of the universe - it is part of nature.
The way theists use the word, there is some aspect of God that is outside of nature. After all God created the natural world - so God could not have been a part of the natural world until it was created. God must have some supernatural (outside of nature) feature - otherwise God is just a natural phenomena that is hypothetically subject to scientific analysis.
Both agnostics & atheists appear to use some variation of this definition.
Quoting 3017amen
What is consciousness?
Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it?
So you have been equivocating uselessly this whole time.
First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that?
Yes, so complete nonsense.
It is, indeed, Amen.
Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word.
Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it...
Jesus is human, god is human consciousness, so your saying a human existed that was conscious.
Quoting Frank Apisa
To define a word is to specify what in reality that word represents or the meaning attached to it.
Note a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive about the meaning of a word. There is a difference between what a word is meant to be as represented in a dictionary use wise versus how people use it which can be person specific.
To be coherent is to both be understandable to us but also not be inherently contradictory. A square circle is a popular example or a married bachelor which are contradictory. Also something like the "color of existence" which according to definitions of those terms doesn't really give a coherent understanding as the concept of existence doesn't give off radiation nor interacts with luminal radiation so it cannot be colored.
Quoting Frank Apisa
So you will assume I'm this (not an agnostic to a particular god concept or theistic to another) before you actively actually indulge in debate with me or others with a particular definition of god? Disingenuous on your part to do so. . . as well as not be able to read my posts so you keep creating false caricatures of them.
Quoting 3017amen
Again, another famous misconstrual of yours but you just gave a coherent definition of god, god=human consciousness, just that it's an equivocation of terms that doesn't really add much.
3017amen - I fixed it.
No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus.
Quoting substantivalism
How is it straw man?
Thanks for that.
Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
So god has the ability to create other conscious beings. . . I don't have that ability so that must be something unique to god. . . almost as if you need to note his properties or specifics.
Quoting 3017amen
More like a mis-construral of my position. How can anyone read my posts then ask AFTER you have given a coherent definition of god which I accepted to discuss with you and didn't say any definition of god isn't inherently incoherent, "why is my definition then incoherent to you?". Only that it's incoherent until you give a definition.
Coherent - Logical and consistent.
Definition - The meaning/representation intended by a word in relation to other concepts/ontological entities. Also can be a prescription regarding what people think the word should be mean't to mean versus description based definitions which describe how people generally have used the word to mean.
You know what i'll ask you question then. So does it exist?
Yes, through inductive reasoning that appears to be the case. Nonetheless, as Frank alluded to earlier ( with atheist 180), only you yourself know yourself, therefore, who knows the mind of God(?).
Quoting substantivalism
Okay, but remember, you changed your position on that. It went from, any discussion about God is incoherent, to okay, let's talk about God. Just sayin.
Does what exist?
A god?
Beats the hell out of me.
You don't seem to know the mind of god because you don't give specifics beyond "it's conscious" but it can also create other conscious beings which I cannot and thusly I don't know if any conscious being could.
Quoting 3017amen
A discussion about "does ____ exist?" is incoherent and won't go anywhere nor could you take any position much regarding what is supposed to go in the blank but if you could define and specify what does go within the blanks (that is coherent) then we can begin analyzing it or taking bets. Where is your evidence post wise that I went from "god is forever under any discussion completely and utterly incoherent thusly not worthy of discussion" to "it's incoherent to talk about something existing and taking bets on it before understanding what it is as well as whether it even is coherent to discuss its existence". Remember, YOU have to go back into the previous posts with proper context and paste that part of a previous post that says this is what I held or what I defined ignosticism as.
Quoting Frank Apisa
There you go. A distinction between ignorance on the topic of god versus ignorance on the existence of said entity which to me are two different things thus the term i'm using. One is a meta-analysis the other merely a surface level analysis.
You asked "Does 'it' exist?"
I asked you what you meant by "it."
There was no predicate for the "it."
Still no answer.
I posited, "A god?"
And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW.
Now you are serving up a word salad that has nothing to do with the question or my answer.
I'll give you this: All the words are English.
Not sure what your problem is...but if you ever get around to actually discussing the topic at hand, I'm sure we can have fun.
No one knows you yourself better than you yourself, right? So, how could someone else know the mind of someone else? What's your point?
Quoting substantivalism
I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
And I say 'that which' because I don't know if God has a gender or not. The history book known as the Christian Bible is metaphorical, among other things. Beyond this, if you care to, I would not take any exception to someone claiming God is a concept that presumably is super-natural and transcends logic. (Another reason I like the metaphor of : God is a mottled color of truth.)
...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... .
That is the point of that question its incoherent to ask without prior context or further if I even substituted a word that the word in question truly mean't anything to anyone or specified a particular entity to be ignorant towards.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Does skdfksj exist? You say "i don't know" here but that assumes it possesses a meaning to someone its just hidden behind the text. You are assuming there is meaning there to then attribute that word to something in the real world to then be ignorant about. When you say "I don't know" there is a difference between "I don't understand what is going on" and "the entity that is being stated here i'm personally unsure if it exists".
Quoting 3017amen
Could you more specifically define god? What are the properties of it you claim it has? Can you support that said entity gave rise to Jesus?
Hmmmmm
Yeah
As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... .
Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science.
Make sense?
I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.
You are full of shit, Sub.
I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.
Let me give it one more shot...although I suspect you realize you are full of shit, and are merely yelling, "Look, a squirrel" as often and loudly as possible.
When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"
I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.
We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."
But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.
I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.
Depends on how you define causation and what it is which can then determine what things do have causes and what it means for things to not be caused or perhaps even be a-casual.
Quoting 3017amen
Human beings can use the word wonder to apply to something sort of feeling in relation to stimuli from greater reality, yes.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand.
All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists.
When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.
You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor.
I like to think that I appreciate a good poem at least as much as the average person you'd meet on the street. One of my favorite metaphors is that old cliche I was taught in junior school -
"The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas"
Oooooh. It's a classic line that conjures up all sorts of visual images. Alfred Noyes must have patted himself on the back when he came up with that one. But of course we all know that the moon is not really a ghostly galleon - it's a huge hunk of rock orbiting around the earth.
Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives.
But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational.
Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure.
I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
Quoting EricH
I like mine better because it's more germane than yours : God is a mottled color of Truth.
Quoting EricH
Do you mean it has impacts on their conscious existence?
Quoting EricH
Is the nature of your consciousness itself logical?
Quoting EricH
Really? In Christianity Jesus existed, no?
If you believe faith to be irrational, you could always stop believing without proof that human reason is qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Just saying, an option...
REALLY REALLY BIG: The God concept is typically some claim about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere, a realm we can't define in even the most basic manner.
REALLY REALLY SMALL: Human reason is the poorly developed ability of a single species on a single planet in one of billions of galaxies, a species only recently living in caves, a species with thousands of hydrogen bombs aimed down it's own throat, a subject it typically finds too boring to bother discussing.
Quoting 3017amen
One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), personified nature, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism.
Quoting Frank Apisa
When gods were (are) invented, others have asked (ask) the inventors "Why the tall tales?" ;)
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
Quoting 3017amen
More tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by @Punshhh) is applicable.
What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you...
Quoting jorndoe
Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL
Quoting jorndoe
Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction?
Seems like it. (Alternatively, you don't want to.) Try again?
Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God.
Sorry for the redundancy, but I think your credibility is highly suspect LOL
No.
Repeating: ad hominem is typically when someone's argument is dismissed because of their (perceived) character, or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur.
Do you have a point or are you just trolling?
LOL
Quoting jorndoe
Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur?
I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun.
Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “The fanatical atheists are like...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres--Albert Einstein
Quoting 3017amen
Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean?
Quoting Hippyhead
I'm having a bit of difficulty parsing this. While I would phrase it differently, I would basically agree with the statement that human reason is NOT qualified to generate meaningful statements on subjects the scale of gods. Is this what you're saying?
Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post.
Quoting 3017amen
Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god.
Quoting 3017amen
A particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic.
Quoting 3017amen
Jesus may have existed and if he did at most we could suppose only what the Jefferson Bible would clue us into what he potentially said or how he potentially acted as. If there was ever a single person deserving of the title of Jesus. You're for some reason either sneaking in every miracle of the new testament into the word historical fact or merely pick pocketing a particular theological interpretation of Jesus (being the son of god perhaps) that needs to be supported externally to the bible itself to have credence. I'm not talking about whether it's a proper interpretation of the bible (mythologically) but if this person (Jesus) was actually the son of god or had some special relation to god. I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it.
Quoting 3017amen
You know he was basically elaborating on the fact that the word god is molested left and right by bystanders as well as philosophers to the point that it doesn't really have a central meaning anymore, perhaps certain popular conceptions but that's where the buck stops. Saying you believe in god, not supposing any popular interpretation or conception of god to probably hold, makes it indeterminate as to what you would mean by such a term without further elaboration. Nor what i'm to be agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards.
Quoting 3017amen
Some contain fiction and those can be rather obvious; mythological stories, stories which conflict with an abundant collection of historical fact/knowledge, etc. The main point being that if your story has a person walking on water even though every person (you could perform an experiment here) you could or have interacted with have never been able to walk on water it then seems nomologically not possible to due so without changing our understanding of physics (we are not assuming he looked like he was walking on water when he was walking on wooden rods that were submerged). He walked on water without any fancy physics tricks so he defied our understanding of modern day physics knowledge. So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur?
Read the thread. I have given several definitions (all variations of the same thought expressed here) of what I mean when I use the word "god" in these discussions.
I have not said I speak for anyone else. I am telling you what I mean. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?
And to use the words "you do not speak for every other religious individual " is an absurdity. I am NOT a religious individual... as that comment suggests.
When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"
— Frank Apisa
Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.
I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread.
Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism.
That FACT bothers you folk...and you go into denial and pretense.
I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit.
I don't care what you think...but it would be great to think that you DO think.
Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical.
You'd be better off in the shallow end of the pool, 180.
I'm saying reason has not been proven qualified for that job.
We look at holy books and see their qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided.
We look at human reason and see it's qualifications for the largest subjects has not been proven. And so we withhold belief in that authority until such proof is provided.
In Christianity Jesus existed.
Quoting substantivalism
It's useless to those who lack understanding.
Quoting substantivalism
So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence?
Quoting substantivalism
Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... .
Quoting substantivalism
For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.
With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.
In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?
The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply!
Quoting EricH
It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.
One of the great things about this forum is that there are a lot of pretty articulate & intelligent people here. I've gotten a lot of good feedback - even from people who I completely disagree with. If I get a response that is completely at odds with what I thought I was saying, then perhaps I have not expressed myself clearly and there's a better way.
Of course there will be many situations where the differences are so great that there is no communication possible - in which case I gently bow out.
Anyway, with that in mind? I think we're sort of saying the same thing in different words. So please take what I'm going to say not a criticism of your views but rather as suggestions on how you can better express what I think you're trying to say. Of course I could be totally off base here, but even then we will have learned something.
Quoting Hippyhead
I am not qualified to be a plumber, although I would likely be a decent plumber if I had training. Reason is a tool. So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job".
Quoting Hippyhead
There's a similar problem here with these formulations. Books are not qualified to do anything. One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. They all disagree with one another so at best only one is correct, and there is no way that you can use reason to tell which - if any - of these books is accurate"
Quoting Hippyhead
Likewise.
BTW - if you think there's a better way for me to express my thoughts I accept all constructive criticism. :smile:
I've explained that.
You really should go to the shallow end of the pool, 180.
Hello angry atheist!
Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:
Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.
Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .
He still seems angry Frank LOL
Here's another take on that claim...
One theory could be that when Jesus went out in to the desert and subjected himself to extreme stress, he somehow overcame the illusion that he was a separate thing divided from everything else. If God is a word for everything, and Jesus realized that he was one with everything, he may have concluded that therefore he personally was everything, or in the language of his time, God.
Let's recall that Jesus was reportedly a very enthusiastic and charismatic person, who was only 30 years old. Given his age, it's possible he misinterpreted and over personalized a very real and profound experience he had. The problem may not be with his experience, but with his explanation of it.
Or, maybe he did understand the experience correctly, but when he came back in to town and tried to explain it to people who hadn't had such a transformative experience, they mangled his explanations, turning them in to something other than what Jesus intended. Given that Jesus never wrote anything down himself, we're never going to know what his words really were.
He does seem angry, Amen.
I suspect he is trying to bait me into saying something that gets me banned.
Atheists do not like having agnostics around to debate. They inevitably lose.
Quoting 3017amen
You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.
If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular
Great analysis! I'll add into the possibility that we will never know if Jesus wrote anything down himself.
Of course he could have, but the Pharisees and Sadducees might have thrown it away :snicker:
There was alot of anger even back then LOL
Ok, except that we don't know that. We know only that no one has proven that it is adequate. It seems reasonable to guess that reason is not adequate, but without proof one way or another, a declarative sentence seems unwarranted.
Quoting EricH
Yes, and for the same reason that there is no reason to accept human reason as being authoritative. No proof.
It appears you are searching for a straw man argument. What do you mean by circular?
Yep. There are alot of sore losers (atheists) here on the forum. An issue for cognitive science I know, but I think it has something to do with their ego.
Already done.
Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.
Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL
Ah, good point. Hadn't thought of that. Must add that to my sermon! You can be my apostle now if you want, you've earned it. :-)
Jesus pointed us to love, and suggested we "die to be reborn". Two ways to describe a surrender of the self.
What is the self? A symbolic abstraction, a collection of ideas.
When we die to the self, to the pile of abstractions, where does that leave our focus? On the real world.
What is the real world? A single unified phenomena.
We just became everything, which is sometimes called God.
But, point to remember, we became everything by ceasing to exist.
Nice! I like that. Metaphysical abstracts are alive and well! For example, the language of mathematics that describe (not explain) the cosmos is indeed a truth, yet abstract!!!
A great example, thanks for that. So we are building a collection of phenomena which everyone agrees are real, but which do not meet the definition of existence.
Thus, it's possible that both theists and atheists are right.
THEISTS: God is real. Could be true.
ATHEISTS: God doesn't exist. Could also be true.
Or:
Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.
Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence.
Omnipotence. . . I attempted to post a thread discussing how we could define it not that it was impossible therefore god was (not to mention that would only make omnipotent defined gods impossible not every god. . . be more careful with your language). It's an intriguing discussion where we discuss a definition that isn't circular/contradictory but also isn't tautologically true in the sense that any individual would be omnipotent. . . but you don't seem to want to indulge in that discussion now because you think I'm going to bring up the rock paradox immediately. . . that if we fail in our investigation I'll declare "forever and ever no matter what theists do they will never give a coherent definition of god".
Never ever said you were a theist if you even supposed as such. You wouldn't stop talking about how you are an agnostic which is impossible to miss. I merely prefaced don't push your definition on others and you did note that it's yours alone on many occasions.
Quoting Frank Apisa
A person is only agnostic, atheistic, or theistic once they understand what god(s) are supposed to mean. It's like when people claim that you are an atheist/agnostic when you are born which I think is a misapplication of those positions. You're an agnostic with respect to god when you understand what god means then remain epistemologically ambivalent about its existence. Given agnosticism is no leaning one way or another on the god question not that you don't know nor understand the question/concept being argued for.
Quoting Frank Apisa
So would you claim then that something a person doesn't know about they actively in a position of ignorance towards it? Or that if they don't even understand what an entity is defined as or that it's supposed to mean anything to anyone that you could be actively epistemologically indifferent to the existence of something that may not be an entity at all? I was trying to emphasize that atheist, theist, and agnostic are internal to the debate while those positions discussing tenative perspective on the debate, ignostics perhaps, are dealing with whether we should even debate or have reason to do so.
If I recall I never insulted you and you continue to do so. . . good philosophical sportsmanship.
Quoting Frank Apisa
If you wanted to make it more general then you need to add to it "I do not know if gods exist or not or if the concept possesses any coherent meaning to do so". I'm not talking about every meaning of god, as I've pointed put, you cannot be agnostic to some while you have to be atheistic/theistic to others par their definitions. Basically you need to make this a more general I don't know statement. The missing bit is that ignosticism which you could add in.
Also add in that you have to be knowledgable or understand the discussion first hand to then actively take an agnostic position.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I have now and there's nothing wrong with it within the god discussion but to meta questions regarding the coherency/definition of god you would need to preface that in together with the fact that you would have knowledge as well as an understanding of the debate. Otherwise a baby before they were born is an agnostic which seems strange to me to ascribe a position to a person who doesn't even understand the concept being played with.
Quoting 3017amen
There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus.
Quoting 3017amen
They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about.
Quoting 3017amen
Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian?
You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such.
You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend.
A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person.
You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it.
You enjoy wasting your time dont you? Lol
No amount of reasoning or patience will avail you sir, you are dealing with a troll and in Franks case, dementia. Neither are interested in actual discussion, just FYI.
There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous?
Quoting substantivalism
God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin:
Quoting substantivalism
Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... .
Quoting substantivalism
You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry.
Quoting substantivalism
And so we may have agreement to where it is in fact true that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind?
Quoting substantivalism
Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience?
Quoting substantivalism
Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional?
Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL
In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there.
Otherwise, as explained earlier, because only you yourself only know yourself (because you yourself exist), you have the burden of defining the true nature of yourself. Can you pass that test?
I enjoy talking about the concept of God, don't you Tim? I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy.
Well, that's a huge question(s). I'll just give you one reason for you to ponder. I enjoy the Revelation that comes with it.
As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No?
Let's go through each of them one at a time (for simplicity I'll only include one philosopher since there are dozens more):
1. Ethics: Christian ethics
2. Metaphysics: Descartes Metaphysics (to name just only one)
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Immanuel Kant (synthetic a priori knowledge)
6. Political Philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we Trust
I'm sure I missed something, so help me out there Tim!
Quoting tim wood
Really, go ahead and show me, I'll be glad to respond. The thing is, it may not be what you want to hear.
Quoting tim wood
Quoting tim wood
LOL. Does that mean hiding behind ad hominem is the preferred approach to the OP's concerns about God? Or, are we back to what Einstein said about fanatical atheism?
I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.
Interesting.
Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language!
I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times.
As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that.
I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.
Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum.
No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that.
No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.
You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.
Here they are:
1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?
2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)
What would your answers be?
Gosh Frank, they're getting unhinged. I kind of feel sorry for some of them, but hey, it's of their own doing. I think it's called volitional existence. I suppose using Christian philosophy (once again), it's really 'nothing new under the sun' as it were (Ecclesiastes/Existentialism)!!!
Have a good weekend brother!
You have a good weekend too, Amen.
Everyone...have a safe, enjoyable weekend.
Devoid of context, yes, but when a person talks about George Washington in the U.S. they probably are talking about the person who was the first U.S. president.
Quoting 3017amen
It is what it is when they have actually defined it and aren't talking about the concept of god but about god itself. . . after having defined it.
Quoting 3017amen
What?
Quoting 3017amen
Nice deflection.
Quoting 3017amen
You are aware of something you call the self. We call this experience awareness. Is it false that I call it awareness, is that subjective?
Quoting 3017amen
Are ineffable 'religious' experiences consistent with experiences of waking experiences and are not merely our imagined caricatures of existence. Can you support that a person is having said experience and that such an experience is not the same as a mirage of water in the distance but the experience of concretely water in the distance. Can you not assume unexplained is equivalent to "you know the answer" or that we just suppose it exists without reduction/deeper ontological relations to other entities. We've both admitted partially that part of what makes up conscious awareness, experiences, don't come from within us and we have no knowledge of making ourselves so clearly the reality that either makes us up or gives rise to our experiences must allow for said conscious awareness.
Quoting 3017amen
Yes, a historian would know the difference between the human character of Jesus and the mythological character of Jesus who was created by ____insert well defined answer____. Was this historian ever born. . . then he interacted with people in a way distinct from fictional characters. . . then he wasn't fictional. Or if you are not assuming this but merely questioning my outward speculation as to whether he is or isn't fictional. . . well that is unfalsifiable by definition as he has never interacted with anyone so it's indeterminate whether he ever existed at all, to me or anyone else it would be "I don't know" as the final answer to that.
Quoting 3017amen
Not without reason to do so.
Quoting 3017amen
You have to prove that Jesus is part god not repeat what the bible says he was perhaps even as proof (that's circular). Also define god.
Quoting 3017amen
So another person is also distrustful of you argumentation strategies and disingenuous nature. That list just keeps on growing the longer this goes on.
Quoting Frank Apisa
I was talking about how I did try to post a meaningful discussion here about one of the common attributes given to monotheistic gods (popular in the christian tradition) but then mentioned how you would't perhaps be respectful in a discussion because you think i'm a fedora hat wearing atheist i'm assuming.
Do you think such a discussion is bullshit when apologists actually do discuss said attributes or have critical evaluations given to point out exactly where they go wrong? Cause you called it "that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit," so do you then think it's just bullshit to point that out in a discussion. . . about defining god. . . especially because it's popular to do so. . . by apologists. . .
Quoting Frank Apisa
Or that god possesses any coherent meaning to disagree on its existence anyways.
Quoting Frank Apisa
You really disgustingly abhor atheists so much that you literally have forgotten what i've said numerous times that "if I was given a coherent definition of god then we can discuss its existence." This is a position. . . a meta-position on the god discussion. . . not an overarching moral/aesthetic/metaphysical/epistemological belief system just as if you are an agnostic with respect to the god discussion you could think it's a waste of time, be ambivalent towards it, or be truly open to being mindfully won over.
There is a difference here between, again, saying "I don't know what god means or is?" and "I know what a god means and I express ignorance towards whether such an ontological entity exists?".
Quoting Frank Apisa
Gotcha, you will continue to insult me.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Never said you were an atheist as an atheist is one who claims "god doesn't exist?". NOT "I don't know what a god is?". Do you even understand your or my own terms here?
Quoting Frank Apisa
"Ignoticism emphasizes the general rule that any discussion presupposes that the dialogue partners have defined - explicitly or by common use of language - their terms. A sound definition requires that the terms in question are reduced to well-known terms. And that the latter terms are not contradictory.
Without these presupposition any discussion between agnostics, atheists and theists is senseless." As paraphrased from a theological post on philosophy stack exchange which again is what I mean by ignostic as well. You cannot take a truth claim then apply it to a nonsense proposition or admit that one could be given but are ignorant of which one (true or false) as this presupposes it isn't nonsense period. Until you coherently define the terms given then we could start actually discussing whether we're unsure what conclusion to give to said question (true or false) and or declare is purely false/true.
1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.
I thought you were making claims independent of whatever some humans believe or not? :brow:
It's not like beliefs make it so.
I asked:
1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?
2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)
What would your answers be?— Frank Apisa
You responded:
"Ignoticism emphasizes the general rule that any discussion presupposes that the dialogue partners have defined - explicitly or by common use of language - their terms. A sound definition requires that the terms in question are reduced to well-known terms. And that the latter terms are not contradictory.
Without these presupposition any discussion between agnostics, atheists and theists is senseless." As paraphrased from a theological post on philosophy stack exchange which again is what I mean by ignostic as well. You cannot take a truth claim then apply it to a nonsense proposition or admit that one could be given but are ignorant of which one (true or false) as this presupposes it isn't nonsense period. Until you coherently define the terms given then we could start actually discussing whether we're unsure what conclusion to give to said question (true or false) and or declare is purely false/true.
1. Unknown to me personally though it would seem to be rather unlikely.
2. There could be but then we wouldn't know that they existed, note that this is a conceptual possibility not a metaphysical/nomological possibility until its argued for.
Okay.
That is what I would answer also...although I would have eschewed the cosmetics and simply said, "I do not know."
That also is what I would answer on the question of gods.
Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical.
It isn’t.
That "have a safe, enjoyable weekend" applies to you also. Sub.
Obviously I can par your prescription that I sum it up rather than be worrisome about specifics. Strange you gave an example where even intuitively or in relation to known scientific definitions allows me to actually take a position regarding the application of truth/false values to the question we've been discussing as well a have it making sense to do so but merely that were unsure which to give it. If I could play devils advocate it's agnosticism about the god discussion or the god question not an admittance that it will always mean something or that it will never mean something.
• life and consciousness came about in the universe, consciousness can come about in the universe
• Vishnu/Yahweh installed and installs consciousness in biological lifeforms in the universe
The former is a matter of (neutral) observations, the latter is, well, a kind of (fantastic) story-telling.
We don't have exhaustive knowledge of life consciousness whatever, but we do know things thereof.
If anyone claim they can justify the latter beyond mere religious faith, then please go ahead.
@3017amen? (this would work, rather than passive-aggressive rambling) (y)
The truth of the matter has no dependency on whatever some humans happen to believe or not.
Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that?
Quoting substantivalism
Okay.. So, how did they define it?
Quoting substantivalism
It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence.
Quoting substantivalism
I'm not following that at all really. You may want to study William James and Maslow and others from cognitive science. They did some pretty intense studies of patients having such experiences that include ineffable phenomena. There are also studies on NDE's but that's a different subject matter all together.
Quoting substantivalism
Okay, so I think from what you're saying there you agree that history is pretty accurate and Historians pretty much do a good job no?
Quoting substantivalism
As I said earlier, if you can prove to me the nature of your own existence, then much more of your questions/concerns can be answered.
.
Discussion of Christianity on philosophy forums seems hopelessly inept. To read a philosophy forum, one would get the impression that Jesus never mentioned love. All this male ego chest thumping and intricate logic calculation etc, seems pointless.
A human being who may have deserved the label of Jesus may have existed. Most of the story regarding said individual is polluted by tall tales so it's hard to tell where the real Jesus may be and where he isn't. . . start with the Jefferson Bible.
Quoting 3017amen
You'll have to give a link to their definition of god or get them on the forum personally to elaborate on their position.
Quoting 3017amen
No one can know what these thoughts are or what gives rise to them fully and without the danger of skepticism only through an acceptance that they are just the way they are (and a pragmatic/epistemological methodology) on our relationship to them can we then begin constructing abstract relationships or developing deeper concepts.
Quoting 3017amen
So wait despite all our talk about not understanding ourselves or reality as we know it you appeal to cognitive science? So you do actually follow scientific practice or do you just throw it out? I thought you were anti-materialism or anti-objectivism now were talking about whether these brains have anything to do with consciousness (as they starkly do) but you haven't exactly made this clear before.
If you are appealing to these studies then please tell me can a consciousness exist without a brain to be located within?
Quoting 3017amen
Usually, if by "doing a good job" you mean claim with evidence (something you haven't done) that there may have been a person named Jesus that the biblical story was made around then, yes. Did he actually perform miracles or was he made by this god of yours but rather come about by conception as we all know it. . . rather unlikely if not perhaps impossible. Also not warranted by the evidence.
Quoting 3017amen
Will giving an answer to the nature of my existence change anything about what I can do right now? I can't walk through walls, usually abide by most social rules, nor control what exactly the world is doing to me (at best i'm restricted to the narrow hallways of reality and at worst i'm strapped down to view it all go by). I cannot tell you the nature of existence in the same sense that you cannot tell me the nature of yours at best the only philosophy you should hold to here is not a metaphysical but an epistemological pragmatic idealism. We cannot know what the thoughts in themselves (or what give rise to them) are truly only what they can do, what they've done, and our relationship to them (taken all rather vaguely).
Quoting Hippyhead
If you want to discuss Christianity divorced from 3017amen and the metaphysical baggage that pollutes its message that sounds rather like a nice thread to start tugging at. I've also always seen what was problematic about religion and its claims were that it was to overall focused on these metaphysical issues rather than being something short of guidance for the lost or merely personal life philosophy in many cases. That's why you get atheist christianity and the Jefferson bible. I'll talk to death the occasionally intriguing or rather wrongly put metaphysical claims religions espouse but once that's all done maybe their just keep doing what they were doing without that baggage.
Nice!
Quoting substantivalism
We would have to defer to text books or otherwise written communication/information which I'm not sure you're convinced represents any type of authority.
Quoting substantivalism
Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence?
Quoting substantivalism
Sure I appeal to science for many things, including empirical data. As such, science has concluded that more or less you don't know the nature of your own existence which is what we're talking about. So until you can prove to me how you exist (the nature of your existence), then we can have a cogent discussion about someone else's existence. Otherwise we're back to learning about people from history books. Make sense?
Quoting substantivalism
That's an important distinction that goes back to your own illogical existence. For example how does the conscious and subconscious mind work together? The infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and crashing and killing yourself, lends itself to violation of formal rules of logic (LEM) perception of two things at once. And so using our sense of logic, basically means that consciousness is an impossibility. Or said another way, consciousness itself is logically impossible.
I go back to you explaining the nature of your own existence. Did it emerge from a warm pool of soup or a piece of wood or some other means or method? Until you can do that, what's the point in trying to understand someone else's existence? It seems to be like blind leading the blind, no? Otherwise you can talk about the creation of physical matter, but how would that explain the nature of your existence?
Quoting substantivalism
I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery.
Ok, maybe we'll do that. Could be a plan. Until then, you might keep in mind that nobody is forcing you to focus on "metaphysical baggage" that you don't find credible. If you think it would be fun to transcend the metaphysical claims, you can start transcending when ever you're ready.
Okay.
Quoting 3017amen
If they have written on the subject somewhere or someone is talking about them with direct quotations then it would definitely be authoritative.
Quoting 3017amen
No just an elaboration on how you couldn't really know what the nature (however this is defined) is as we cannot think of our thoughts outside ourselves.
Quoting 3017amen
Somewhat, you got to admit that what ever progress we make pragmatically/scientifically ourselves/in groups lends itself definitely to discover something about reality even though we may not know every key point of it given our limited perspective (it would be highly abstracted). In the end we will still say that whether these experiences have a certain reason for their existence or find themselves solipsistically within you we still would call them or associate with them personhood when see your friend. Somewhat of the same answer to people from history books with a rather complicated connection between our personal introspection or caricatures (imagination) and other past experiences with what we called "real" people versus complete fictions (reading harry potter).
Quoting 3017amen
I wouldn't say it's impossible because if it was then that would mean (given my understanding of the words used here) it doesn't exist even though something clearly does. The issue here is trying to see the mind or our "body" as entirely point emphasized as you can be day dreaming while having your muscles relaxed so they just allow the car forward before it impacts something. You aren't daydreaming and not daydreaming as that would be contradictory but here you are one, not the other, and this negligence lends itself to having the hunk of metal you're within glide uninhibited towards something.
Quoting 3017amen
I get it. . . existentialism. . . your focus is not on really on the nature of what makes us up or perhaps even gives rise to us but more in what we do that is important, not letting vague metaphysical or scientifically sterilized abstractions entirely dictate who we are.
Quoting 3017amen
Okay. . . didn't expect this when we first met but now i've somewhat turned around.
Quoting Hippyhead
I wouldn't know where to start as my focus my entire life so far has been spent on discussing those claims, the methods to do so, what other metaphysical claims others have made, etc. I spend my free time constantly thinking about mathematical problems in physics and occasionally the philosophy behind.
My brother, someone who also was turned away from his religion of his parents, has gone in a rather opposite direction not forgetting our scientific advancements (he bases a good chunk of his philosophy somewhat on evolutionary intuitions) but its heavily inspired if not the same as forms of eastern philosophies, i'd always say it looked to be a close cousin to process philosophy.
Here's an abbreviated summary of the conversation:
EricH - What do you mean by the word "God"?
3017amen - A God who designed consciousness.
EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
EricH - What do you mean by the word that - who or what does "that" refer to?
3017amen - It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.
EricH - You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.
The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.
Through a glass darkly ...
1. Ethics: Epicurus, Benedict Spinoza, Philippa Foot
2. Metaphysics: Ray Brassier
3. Epistemology: David Deutsch, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Clément Rosset
5. Logic: L. Wittgenstein, Nelson Goodman (& actualism)
6. Political Philosophy: Piotr Kropotkin, David Schweickart
Quoting 180 Proof
A Small Secular Prayer
I hope & pray that everyone involved in this discussion engages in productive and fulfilling activities in the real world. I hope and pray that you do not obsess about these conversations. I hope there is some joy and happiness in your lives. Have a good weekend. Tell your loved ones that you love them.
See you Monday?
Amen
Think of it this way, you're driving and not driving because whichever mind was involuntary causing you to daydream took over and caused you to crash and kill yourself. In other words, you're driving and not driving at the same time because a mysterious part of you took over.
Otherwise, think about how that consciousness phenomena is logically possible?
Hello angry atheist! Sorry for the redundancy, were you able to understand Frank's belief in Agnosticism?
Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:
Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.
Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... .
LOL! This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!
I'm not following that:
Definition- the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.
Quoting EricH
A conscious being; Jesus.
Quoting EricH
Refer to above. In Christianity, Jesus was known as a conscious being to be part man and part God.
Really? Well you ought to have done so rather than merely saying you could.
That abomination of a sentence coming from someone who told me to be careful of my wording?
Oh, the humanity!
Of course you "could." You are doing so. Why waste so many words?
Try that with a bit of meaning. It at least has the sound of something interesting. I'd love to know what you were unsuccessfully attempting to convey,
Obsess much?
Have a great weekend, Eric.
I almost always do. I am a very lucky guy.
That's funny Frank, 180 unknowingly, just acquiesced to agnosticism. Yet another irony for the atheist (like him).
Noticed you didn't take up the challenge, despite continuing talk about consciousness.
What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol!
I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge?
You are either actively participating in the act of driving or you are not if you are day dreaming then you are not driving. Merely the inertia of the vehicle propels the hunk of metal forward and that then impacts something.
More insults and I fixed it. . . your what. . . 70 or so years old (I recall you saying this) and yet you seem to act more childish than me in my young age. Not so much define or clarify your terms better than it was a grammar mistake which isn't exactly what I was getting at with "be careful with the words used".
Quoting Frank Apisa
I have to be specific with my intentions or the sub-context.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Can agnosticism be equivalent to "I don't know what a god is?" or is it only applicable to answering the question "I don't know if a god exists?" which, again, assumes we've defined what that collection of three letter words is to then, potentially, make perfect sense to apply a false/true truth value. I'd recommend not being petty on your future replies.
I turned 84 on the 9th of this month. I am not childish. I have a plan...and I am carrying it out to perfection.
By the way, using "your" when you mean "you're" is not the thing to do in a paragraph devoted to what that paragraph had as an intention.
Ahhh..."specific with (your) intentions or the sub-context."
You should be more careful with words, Sub. You are starting to sound like a person speaking the way stupid people think smart people speak.
And you are obviously not stupid...so why do that?
Quoting substantivalism
Okay. I'll take that under advisement, but I must confess that I have not been "petty" so far. And I tend to take recommendations of that sort with a dismissive laugh.
[/quote]
Really? Then why would a person intentionally daydream, crash and kill themselves, while driving? Surely that couldn't be the case.
In other words, tell us if consciousness itself, is logically possible? Or is its design logically impossible to explain? Or, a third option, is it a brute mystery?
Belated happy birthday, Frank.
Maybe, maybe not. :sweat: It's not cool to pick on "childish" folks (except here on TPF), but ... drop that babytalk, put on your big boy's pants, sir, and finally answer like a thinking adult :point:
Quoting 180 Proof
Thank you, 180.
I definitely am NOT childish. I am very adult.
I have answered it.
How can you claim that my claim that I do not know something can be anything but true?
I do not know if gods exist or not. I just do NOT KNOW.
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible).
I honestly, truthfully see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible).
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence).
I swear to you, 180, that I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence).
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.
On my honor as a human that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.
Now, the last part (so I make no guesses)..and you may have me on that.
Actually, occasionally I do...when pressed.
I always use the same coin to assist me in my guess. A Sacagawea $1 coin that Nancy and I use to decide picks (when we disagree) in our NFL pools. The coin is called Mr. Coin...and I always use Heads to denote a guess that there is at least one god...and Tails to denote a guess that there are none.
I do not claim, or imply, that "you not knowing something" is true or false; rather I'm asking HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CLAIMS - about what you say you "do not know" - ARE TRUE?
Tell me/us, then, what "unambiguous evidence" looks like - what you expect to "see" that you say you do not "see" especially in arguments for or against "gods" (or theism). Tell me/us what would count as "unambiguous evidence"?
Because, so far, whatever you've "blindly guessed" "unambiguous evidence" to be, Frank, excludes ANY and ALL evidentiary arguments for or against "gods" (or theism) merely by dismissing them as "blind guesses" WITHOUT MAKING VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OF YOUR OWN.
You offer nothing but subjective, anecdotal, testimonials - which is okay and your right to do so - but YOU DON'T OFFER REASONS which can be taken seriously in philosophical discussions. Thus, I've ridiculed your making nothing but "blind guesses" that positions for or against "gods" (or theism) are "blind guesses" amounts to self-refuting nonsense (i.e. babytalk). Surely you can do better than that or, as befits your seniority, Frank, honorably concede that you can't.
This reminds me of that Batman villain Two-Face ... Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men (book & film) ... or even the main conceit of The Dice Man novel by George Cockcroft. Like a lunatic or stoic fideist (e.g. Tertullian? Pascal?) :smirk:
What are you saying, 180?
I KNOW THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY GODS OR NOT?
Of course that is true.
I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol.
I do not know if there will be an eruption of a volcano in any of the 48 contiguous mainland states during 2021.
I do not not know many things...and I know that I do not know them.
If a message were received by every media outlet in the world tomorrow that said, "I am GOD and to prove I exist I will remove the planet Saturn from your Solar system at 2:00 pm Greenwich Time on September 18th, and return it to its place in the system exactly one year later...
...and at 2:00 pm Greenwich Time on September 18th the planet Saturn disappears from our Solar system and returns to its place one year later...
...I would consider that pretty unambiguous evidence.
There is absolutely NO unambiguous evidence I would accept that there are no gods...because there is no unambiguous evidence that exists of that. (If you can think of an example of unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...please offer it.)
You seem to be very angry and annoyed that I do not know if any gods exist or not. Not sure what that is about...but, you are free to be as angry and annoyed as you want.
In the meantime, if you have some unambiguous evidence that there is at least one god...or some unambiguous evidence that there are no gods...
...present it.
I have not heard a single piece of unambiguous evidence in either direction...here or anywhere else during the last 70 years.
I honorably concede that I do not know if gods exist or not; I honorably concede that I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible); I honorably concede that I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence); and I honorably concede that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.
If that is not enough for you...ignore me.
Does it?
Okay.
Anything else?
Glad that plan includes occasionally insulting me.
Quoting Frank Apisa
More grammar and not addressing my position.
Quoting Frank Apisa
More grammar and not addressing my position but thank you again.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Clearly I missed that. . . and more childish insults from the "adult" of the discussion. If I trip and ask for a hand will you spit in my face or actually help me (this is rhetorical)?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Okay, so are you admitting they are different claims requiring different positions? As well as the fact that agnosticism cannot cover what ignosticism is mean't too with the first question which must come before the second?
Quoting Frank Apisa
Again, Ignosticism is an ignorance towards the concept of god and the question "what is a god?" which is a more general "I don't know" than your agnosticism which admits or assumes there is already a coherent meaning to the word "god" in every situation involving the term. One is a meta-perspective and other a perspective residing directly in the discussion with the terms already given or understood. It would be as easy as adding a pre-statement of indeterminacy regarding whether god is a coherently defined entity and if it's a specified entity then you can take your middle way position on whether it exists or not.
Quoting Frank Apisa
So then i'll wait for you to break this "promise".
Quoting 3017amen
Do you intentionally beat your heart or breath all the time? No, occasionally you forget and those life preserving activities are carried out by parts of the brain that you are not directly aware of. If your brain is devoid of oxygen or sleep you do go out of consciousness or perhaps hallucinate resulting in the exact same situation, a crash. If reality as it's interacts with you (isn't created by you) then this begs the question that what gives rise to you against what ever will of yours (don't think you have the perspective of choosing to be born) is occasionally subservient to.
Quoting 3017amen
Philosophically, as i've explained before, anything detected by direct experience would be a brute mystery in that you cannot know the thing-in-of-itself. You can understand however the things outward behavior/nature that is directly possible to assess and therefore also understand strong relationships between these things. Such as lack of sleep leads to momentary unconsciousness or lucid dreaming which results in not applying breaking/steering when it would be of utmost importance to avoid a crash, where all the terms used apply to those things and not the thing-in-of-itself.
Hello angry atheist! Sorry for the redundancy, were you able to understand Frank's belief in Agnosticism?
Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:
Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.
Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... .
So it exactly some wavelength of light that is red and not a blending of different wave lengths of light that perceptionally (similar to a camera) from long distances the human eye cannot distinguish.
Quoting 3017amen
There is a difference between "this is the exact collection of visible light this apple gives off" and "this is what my visible apparatus (eyes) can make out at a certain distance from said apple after having interacted with said light". Recall that our eyes don't have infinitely precise number of pixels picture wise and so from any collection of colors some distance away we would think one thing but get closer (a different state of affairs) then more pixels of our eyes can mark the difference. Or you are merely pointing out the limited applicability of human language as I can just call this color which seems to be a mixture of colors (gives similar sensations) something new so it isn't 50% red and 50% not red but 100% ____insert word of choice____. It's similar to a Sorites problem such as where does the mountain end and the valley begin which to me is largely a fault of the vagueness of human words/definitions but doesn't immediately give clear evidence that the world is actually indeterminate/vague metaphysically. The vagueness of our language/concepts is different from the inherent vagueness of the things-in-of-themselves.
If the apple was from a certain distance away (all else being equal) both red and not-red at the same time then it would violate classical logic. To perform your experiment this would involve changing the state of affairs so we were actually seeing more clearly details that were inaccessible to us before (in the previous location or spot) therefore we could not make such a conclusion.
Quoting 3017amen
Well quantum indeterminacy is a particular part of a few interpretations of quantum mechanics so you'll need to be further specific.
Sure (in our context) that would speak to the ineffable ; one having a religious experience.
Quoting substantivalism
That's correct. We don't understand things in themselves, much like the mystery associated with the nature of our conscious existence.
Likewise, dialectic reasoning would also violate similar laws of non-contradiction (Aristotle). Being and becoming, actual vs potential, pretty much anything in nature, etc. are outside of the many rules of logic (either/or v. both/and) which speaks to natural phenomenon and Being (living life). Some objects can be potentially F and potentially non F. Consider the exchange: Were you pleased? Well I was and I wasn't.
Or in the case of driving a car while daydreaming, you were essentially driving and not driving. And so if we cannot use logic to adequately explain our own existence, how can the atheist (in our discussion) make an accurate judgement about or explain the existence of, another Being or object? Is it logically possible?
Quoting substantivalism
Agreed. Similarly, consider a spinning ball that appears gray. Say we were never able to stop the ball from spinning, so we assume that it's gray. Then somehow the ball falls to the ground and stops spinning. Upon further inspection half of the ball was actually black and the other half was white. But if the ball never stops spinning we wouldn't know the true color or nature of the thing-in-itself. Phenomenology and Being is much like the spinning ball that never stops. In other words, living life is not confined to all the rules of logic.
Quoting substantivalism
Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godel's incompleteness theorem both had implications of indeterminacy in nature. The liar's paradox (unresolved paradox/self reference) is the classic example.
And so the question remains, using logic, how can the atheist claim God does not exist? And/or perhaps more importantly for some, in Christianity, how can the atheist claim that Jesus did not exist?
Not really the same as the vagueness of human language (not having precisely defined terms to map onto the characteristics of nature) is what results in bewilderment not the object or thing itself.
Quoting 3017amen
Again, yes, but that doesn't and never really should entirely matter. I talked how we cannot know the things-in-of-themselves with regards to their true entire natures but this is second in importance or relevance to how we actually see reality behave with itself. If you recall (i'm paraphrasing my limited knowledge on this) Hume was rather famously skeptical that there was this sort of casual omph that philosophers or early scientists had suspected was the case and there is a long difficult history of defining casual interactions which would in the end not exactly differ from what would observe in reality. Regardless of whether there are truly casual relationships in the world we can understand a lot purely from coincidental ones as simple as "if A, then B follows". Nothing needs to be said about whether this always happens or that we have grasped entirely all the reasons required for this to specifically take place (or that we could access said reasons). All that matters is that this relationship obtains and while we could continue to find out in what situations (restricting ourselves to our immediate senses) if we happened to find that it generally applied then we could extend inductively to cover other situations.
Quoting 3017amen
That depends on what you define driving as and driving for me would mean being consciously aware or my surrounding as well as the muscles using to steer/brake/speed up.
Quoting 3017amen
Well depends first on how you define atheist and it seems you've taken a popular trichotomy of atheist/theist/agnostic (weak or strong) in which we fore go specifics about belief assessments versus knowledge.
I still fail to see how your vagueness opens up a pandoras box of just believing what ever it's that we can. Why wouldn't we match or analyze these claims to a preexisting ontology, epistemologies (pragmatic or idealist), beliefs, or an understanding of the terms involved. Like I said before, to claim you met a person (not a hallucination or fictional character) is a specific potential or actual experience that generally we understand what that is and name that to be the "real" person. To claim Jesus did exist or possessed any of the features he did would require convincing me or others that there was such a potentially "real" personal experience to be had. It does seem muddy as you would think that perhaps you could convince someone into believing a certain fictional character was just as "real" but that sort of skeptical worry is intriguing but not something I can see you or me convince any of the general public to take in full heartedly. . . every philosophy no matter how strange is enslaved to naive realism.
You are welcome. (What was the "again" for in that sentence?)
Plan working like a charm.
Admitting??? You meant acknowledging, right?
Ignosticism is meant to cover up atheism, because the person using ignosticism realizes that atheism is bullshit.
Argue with an atheist on the Internet...and most of what you get will be discussions of what various descriptors mean.
My agnosticism is defined carefully. Here it is again:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
It is not intended to deal with ignosticism OR atheism. It is merely meant to tell people what I, Frank Apisa, means when I use the descriptor "agnoticism."
In my opinion, "ignosticism" is for people without the guts to take an agnostic position...so I normally do not give them much attention. I'm making an exception in your case.
You quoted me writing: "For the purposes of this discussion I know exactly what I mean when I write that sentence. I've shared that with you.
If you want to fit whatever it is you are getting at into other facets of MY agnosticism...do it, and I'll see if I can live with it."[/quote]
Waiting for you to do that.
We have a difference of opinion on what ignosticism is. I think it is a word people who think there are no gods use because they are too cowardly to use agnostic to indicate the degree of their doubt.
Sounds good with me, but I will not break that promise. In fact, I already have dismissed it with a laugh. I'm just continuing to implement the plan.
I've answered this question. Not sure why you are still asking it, but I suspect it has to do with the idea I tried to convey with my, "You should be playing in the shallow end of the pool."
You haven't answered the specific, straight-forward, question I've asked:
Quoting 180 Proof
If you had, Frank, then it would be CLEAR to all of us what makes 'your agnosticism' true (i.e. corroborable evidence, sound arguments, etc) and therefore intelligible & compelling. My critical observations stand unrefuted by you (or your idiot wingman 3017amen) e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443305
:victory: :sweat:
180 keeps asking me the same question over and over again...and I have answered it a half-dozen times. All he does is to ask it again.
Can any of you explain to me what he is asking with, "Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE?"
I honestly think I have answered what I suppose the question to be...but if I am misinterpreting the question, please help inform me and I will give it a different answer.
Have you, could you, ask him to put your truth claim in his own words? What is he hearing you claim?
If you can clarify what exactly it is that he's challenging, then you can defend that, or correct his misunderstanding of your position (if that is the case).
Or, you could perhaps use agnosticism as a springboard out of the God debate, and then leave the endlessly repetitive us vs. them squabbling behind. If the "does God exist" question is fatally flawed, there's no point to the theist vs. atheist vs. agnostic squabbling other than as an entertaining nerd ego circle jerk. :-)
There are a lot of ways to parse the human condition in this context. For example, one part of the logical analysis would be to distinguish between an objective truth and a subjective truth.
If it is true that only you yourself know yourself, and that your truth is yours alone, I strongly suggest there would be no amount of logic that could change that. 180's truth is his truth just like Frank's truth is his truth.
For some reason 180 doesn't understand that. He seems upset that Frank does not share his belief system, presumably from some subset of logic that is not germane to the human condition.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive.
No exceptions taken!
Since the concept of God itself is so broad, another way of wondering about such causation could be to parse the meaning of Truth.
Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not?
Quoting 3017amen
[sup](Memory loss? Short attention span? Scatterbrain? ...?)[/sup]
Linked right in the comment, you can't have missed it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443074
(A) My agnosticism is based on objective, corroborable, evidence and is true. Here is the sound argument ...
(B) My agnosticism is based on subjective insights and is true for me (as far as I'm concerned). Countless times already I've shared my insight that every position taken for or again "gods" is nothing but a "blind guess".
(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.
(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.
All along I've given you the benefit of the doubt, Frank, that (A) most applies to your agnostic position. Correct me please or confirm that assunption. :point:
Is science or philosophy objective? Truths independent of the observor???? Well who verifies that?
Obviously the scientist must have a view from nowhere. The god eye view! Such hypocrisy and double standards by the hyper anxious.
I've been a Christian Existentialist for a long time. Thanks.
Well said. Yet again, in Christianity itself, that is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).
and such like are for pendants and appealists to authority.
All truths are descriptions. Refute that timmy. :cool:
Your answer to 180 should be your belief in Agnosticism; it is both an objective and subjective truth (based on his options given).
Just trying to help. Approach it from that perspective and we could have an intellectually lucid and cordial discussion.
Thank you, Asif.
At no point anywhere in this thread or any other thread in the dozen forums where I participate have I EVER suggested that nobody can make a judgement either way. If someone wants to make a judgement that he/she has enough unambiguous evidence to go one way or the other...that is up to them. We can discuss the "unambiguous evidence" if they want.
But I am defending ONLY MY agnosticism...and I am saying that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to may a meaningful guess. And 180 just keeps asking me the same question...which I do not understand.
I UNDERSTAND THE VERACITY OF MY OWN CLAIMS BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY GODS EXIST OR NOT. AND I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A GUESS BECAUSE I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS ON THE MATTER.
If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.
It seems plenty clear to me.
Banno already ran away tail between his analytic legs.
I've already dealt with your strawmanning and your procrustean appeals to authority.
You already got blasted on another thread for your ludicrous generalisations.
Time to actually have original thoughts friend. Put your dictionary and textbooks down and really think.
Man describes,that is truth. From where do you timmy get your truth? Non human sources?
Some are general some specific. And some descriptions are so poor or dishonest we call them false even though the speaker may call or think they are true.
So you find it difficult to tell the difference between a false description and an accurate one?!
Its really not as obscure and difficult as you make out.
The distinction between knowledge and opinion is much misused. An opinion can be knowledge and vice versa.
But both are subjective or intersubjective. Only dogmatists and platonists put forward their opinion that truth Is seperate from human assertion.
Could you expand on this? Does it also mean human assertions are true or does it only work in the one direction?
But some assertions are inaccurate or false.
There is no truth independent of human perception.
That sounds like something can be truth and false. That seems like a contradiction. Do you mean something being true in one way but not true in another way? (For example it can be true that a car is red because it has red on it but at the same time it can be false because the car also has yellow on it.
Well misdescribing something is a type of description, so if descriptions are truth then you cannot also then say that misdescriptions false....at least not without contradicting yourself.
The key is that all truths are descriptions,not that all descriptions are true.
That's a heavy claim to support on your end. . . or a vacuous opinion. If a person defined what they meant by god or we discussed a known definition (I'm taking this to be generalized) of god then they would have to take (in that context) one of three positions or any variations of them.
If Richard Dawkins suddenly became an ignostic and then someone asked him what he thought of the Christian god he would probably say it was highly unlikely or take the atheist position. He wouldn't suddenly say in lieu of the fact that god is nonsense (theological non-cognitivism) that it also is nonsense so it doesn't warrant discussion. If you thought the later, given he held onto my definition, then this would be a strawman of his position.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Because atheist has a thousand asterisks added to by people of all camps so it isn't a surprise their have their own terms defined to encapsulate their position. That's just god philosophy to make clear what your position means then jump forward with the discussion.
Quoting Frank Apisa
First, your agnosticism is not intended to deal with what ignosticism deals with. Then we could have a word for saying "I don't know what a god is" or possess ignorance the question "what is a god"? That here would be ignosticism which addresses a different issue which has to be settled before moving towards atheism/theism/agnosticism.
Quoting Frank Apisa
In contrast to your opinion, through my definitions and examples i have painted it as a tenative position you take on the question "what is god?"/"what meaning does the word god encapsulate?". Your test for ignostics of this variety (not non-cognitivists) would be if they would even discuss the properties of god in earnest or with a particularly well defined god take a mixed belief/knowledge position on said god. If they dismiss it out of hand because they think any god is nonsense, but not discuss why, then they are being clearly disingenuous or are using said position as a cover up to hid poor debate tactics.
In other words (mind the language) they are being an insufferable ass for just throwing the discussion out cold turkey because this fucker won't think critically for once.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Okay.
Well you said “truth is human description”, you also said truth is also human misdescriptions which you said are false. So if you are just saying truth and falsity are human descriptions then there is no contradiction, but it sounds like you are also equating truth with description and thats whats peeked my curiosity because once you equate the those two things it becomes contradictory. Did I misunderstand that, are you not Intending to equate the two?
Quoting Asif
Kind of odd that we sometimes get things wrong, then, and sometimes discover (distinct from invent) new things.
Self-elevation. Subjective idealism. Gross. (n)
Ok, gotchya. :up:
Yes we describe new things all the time. You describe it as discovering.
Self elevation as opposed to what? Self deprecation? And the elevation of "knowledge" to some impersonal force given to scientists and philosophers? Elite much!
And not subjective idealism,but subjective descriptivism.
Yummy! Cakes are real!
What makes you think I was saying there arent things that exist seperate from humans? And do you really think describing entails idealism?
You obviously didn't get my cake reference.
I've never met you or had any monetary transactions with you so your description is false. And it won't be the first time you have been wrong or inaccurate! Monsieur strawman!
Jesus is alluding to another kind of truth, other than by description. How do you read this?
I read this as jesus being an Elitist political priest.
Truth being subjective or intersubjective doesnt make it any less absolute. Your example is bizarre and a strawman. I've said repeatedly not every description is true or accurate.
I will tell your mythical guy tim is delusional and tell your guy hes a dweeb for listening to bad descriptions!
Truth is description. Not every description is truth.
Seems a pretty clear truthful description timmy.
Not truth is an inaccurate or bad description.
Truth is an accurate description.
You can tell the difference between a bad or inaccurate description can you not Timothy?
Same way I know if water is hot. The water feels hot.
Feelings are what? Descriptions.
In your dogmatic confusion you are unable to digest clear common sense and so must strawman and make incorrect assumptions.
Still waiting for your refutation brother. :brow: :cool:
I wasn't going to go into great detail about Pan-psychism but i believe in the Bible due to Pan-psychism. I believe God/Jesus Christ causes evil essentially and that we are all figments of his imagination. I believe he is 100% justified mainly due to the voices in his "head" which are similar to the accuser or the devil and he is essentially alone to deal with his loneliness and we are just his chess pieces that he moves around the board. I suppose he might be able to over time have happiness increase through out the universe and to produce a profit.
My evidence is based on the concept of feeling/awareness emergentism which supposedly occurs in evolution. Feeling or Awareness doesn't really seem like something that could just pop up from an arrangement of particles and i believe it would be irrational to say that feeling or awareness didn't always exist. Like alot of People on this forum i've seen miracles and minor miracles but those are a based on subjective evidence.
:up:
Quoting Frank Apisa
So ... that narrows down the options to just these two:
:sweat:
"Thomas said to him, “Lord, we don’t know where you are going, so how can we know the way?” Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. If you really know me, you will know my Father as well. From now on, you do know him and have seen him.” Philip said, “Lord, show us the Father and that will be enough for us.” Jesus answered: “Don’t you know me, Philip, even after I have been among you such a long time? Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father. How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work.” John 14:5-10"
Can you read and understand what is being said through the words? Jesus is specifically explaining how his disciples will, can and already do know the truth of himself and God through living with him. There is no describing things going on in the way Jesus knows the truth of God, it is visceral, it is real experience primary to any mental apprehension, or description of it.
Jesus was not a priest, he was someone who experienced some kind of divinity and tried to convey it, its truth to those around him. Also, he was not political, although he did seek to expose political corruption from time to time.
No it doesn't, but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.
Enjoy your denial.
Now there you go, sir - finally confessing to (C) wasn't so hard after all, was it? And 'good for the soul' too. :sweat:
Why ASSume that, Frank, when YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ME ... what makes your (positions for or against "gods" are nothing but "blind guesses") claims vis-à-vis agnosticism true?
I did not "confess" to C...I did not even hint that C was correct.
If you were not playing past your depth, you would realize the C is the last one I would choose, because I advertise MY AGNOSTISM dozens upon dozens of times in any thread where it is appropriate. FAR from considering my agnosticism "nobody's fucking business"...I want it to be EVERYBODY's business. I want everyone possible to consider it for adoption.
Anyone but a complete fool would recognize that. But as I said, you are playing way past your depth.
If you were not playing past your depth, you would see that I have given concise responses to your questions, but that you do not have what it takes to understand them.
So...continue to flail.
Much as I hate to acknowledge it, I am enjoying your distress.
As you can see above...180 just does not get it.
So here's where we are:
EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?
Quoting 3017amen
I'm not sure what you mean by "A conscious being; Jesus." Could this be re-phrased as "A conscious being, AKA Jesus."?
Sure, I don't see why not.
Quoting 180 Proof
It seems a bit redundant. If it's "a conscious being AKA Jesus", then wouldn't it be simpler to just say "Jesus"?
No, and good question. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.
OK. Now we can proceed. Here's what we got:
EricH - Please please give me a definition of the word "God"
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
EricH - What does the word "that" refer to in this sentence?
3017amen - A conscious being, AKA Jesus.
And so now we can put these 2 together and we have. . . . . . .
God is a conscious being, AKA Jesus, which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.
This is poetry, not a definition.
On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.
I reject C as the least likely.
I reject A, B, and D also. None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to".
I offer instead Option E:
[b]I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.[/b]
:lol:
He didn't pick D, so I'm confused. Actually, if he did, it would certainly make sense because only you yourself, know yourself. I don't know Frank, like Frank knows himself.
What you are not you cannot percieve to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you--AH Maslow
:lol:
You are an amateur, 180. That kind of thing might work in a forum where they discuss Area 51 in Roswell...or who really killed President Kennedy, but it is just laughable here.
I'm not too proud to say, "Thank you" for the laugh, though.
So...THANKS! :lol:
:victory:
Quoting Frank Apisa
:smirk: :ok:
Quoting 3017amen
Of course he did; of course you are. Take your meds, lil troll.
:wink:
Quoting Frank Apisa
Yeah, I do love philosophizing. Thanks for acknowledging that. Hoped you'd learn from my example - 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that, huh? - but I guess not. Anyway, Happy 84 again, Frank! :party:
I hate to say it but 180z projection of anger only substantiates your position even more! It's kind of a cognitive science thing I think...
At least it's consistent with his nihilistic belief system; he's got nothing to argue!!! LOL
Thank you for the additional birthday greeting, 180.
Here, however, you are flailing.
Your best move would be to do another of those "my work is done here"...and leave with a flounce.
You land more blows on yourself than on your opponents.
LOL, in the spirit of Muhammad Ali (God rest his soul ), with all his pent-up anger I think he rope-a-dope'd himself!!
This is more poetry. Here - I'll add a couple of more lines. I can't figure out what poetic metre this is in. The first two lines seem to have one strong beat and 3 weak beats. Do you know?
[i]Consciousness itself is a mystery
and logically impossible to explain.
Thus doth God up in heaven,
makes that it must be.
And so the rain falls,
and sorrow is upon the earth.[/i]
It takes sort of a sad turn at the end. . . .
I'm kind of digging it actually! Maybe do more of a odd time signature like a 5-4 which would probably be more metaphorically appropriate.
Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth.
Still nothing? Here's the exercise again. And an earlier one:
Quoting jorndoe
Love what a great enigma! That's another part of conscious existence that seems logically impossible to explain doesn't it!
Quoting 3017amen
I have no problem with metaphors. All the religions in the world can duke it out with dueling metaphors.
But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation..
That's not fair, you haven't addressed 3017amen's central point, which is a legitimate concern.
Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically.
Aha...you have nothing to say...
...so you proudly show that nothingness to the world.
Too bad you have so little pride.
Quoting Punshhh
The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.
But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"
You are correct in many ways here, Eric.
BUT...the line of reasoning you are taking is called "The blind guesses of atheists."
This thing we humans call "the universe" may have been "created." And if an entity or entities "created" it...that entity or those entities deserves to be called gods.
ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist.
BUT (once again)...gods possibly exist...just as it is possible no gods exist.
Not sure what you mean. Are metaphor's not meaningfull in the absence of logic? Or are metaphor's a substitution for a lack of explaining nature itself? Meaning, are metaphor's just as logically confusing as your consciousness itself? Does theoretical physics/science use metaphor's?
Hence: Jesus existed and was known to have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.
That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic?
Sorry you melt down so easily. I like a better challenge.
But continue your delusions. They are fun to watch.
:lol:
180, once again, unknowingly acquiesced to admitting he hasn't figured it all out yet. And that's actually okay! How can you be a human and a snowflake all at the same time? Dr. Spock would say that's illogical! LOL
Hence, his liar's paradox, LOL
As I said, you have nothing to say...and you say that well.
If calling me a snowflake makes his feel better about being him...
...okay with me. It cannot be pleasant knowing he is himself.
Indeed. Christianity (the Wisdom Books) actually speaks to that sense of ignorance (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).
Nothing novel there!
We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.
Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"
So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.
If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.
However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.
You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.
So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?
If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position.
Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!!
This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness.
This is a straw man, no one is suggesting that everything is conscious, or pantheism.
Straw again, This only applies when someone attempts to justify a belief in the existence of God. I was simply pointing out that consciousness is good evidence of God, should we exist in a world created by God.
Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God?
This is a poetic word salad not an objective fact. The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both.
This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic.
"The moon was a ghostly galleon"
"Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist."
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"
These are all poetic metaphors.
Quoting 3017amen
I have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors.
So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?
Please check out my response to 3017amen just above.
I didn't realize we had stopped having a discussion...and I certainly do not want to stop.
To make things easier, though, perhaps it is best to limit our discussion to a single element...and see if we can arrive at a satisfactory accord before moving on to others elements.
Allow me to choose the first one...which has to do with the word "supernatural."
Natural, to me, means anything that exists in nature...anything that exists, period. If a thing EXISTS...it is a part of nature.
I suppose (this is just a guess) that there are things that exist...but that humans are not aware of...either because of distance (the universe is a big place) or because of sensory limitations in humans (we may simply not be able to sense or perceive of certain things that exist).
So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?
It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.
Can we agree on that?
Correct. That's why driving while daydreaming is logically impossible. Hence you are driving and not driving at the same time. Or can you explain how the conscious mind works logically?
Quoting EricH
Exactly. That my point. Your conscious existence is essentially logically impossible. Otherwise, explain how far objective truth can take you?
Quoting EricH
Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic?
So whether we're arguing history from a textbook and trying to explain consciousness, mustn't you use logic?
And even if there are logical impossibilities, what difference does it make if you cannot even explain your own.... ?
Super-natural from a physics perspective relates to something beyond the natural laws of physics. Which could also include brute mystery at the end of the Universe.
Thanks, Tim.
I'll wait for Eric to respond. And he may want to choose the next particular to discuss.
Quoting Punshhh
Why? It certainly fails no less than
Quoting 3017amen
Rather
1. necessity = holds in all possible (self-consistent) worlds
2. say, R[sup]3[/sup] is a self-consistent whole, a possible world, non-contradictory
3. consciousness does not figure in (the boring) R[sup]3[/sup]
4. consciousness is not necessary
@EricH's assertion is therefore justified moreso than @3017amen's.
So you suppose humans KNOW ALL the "natural laws of physics?"
Of course not. That's why something super-natural is logically possible. As an extreme example, multiverse theories include pretty much any and all hypothesis.
It is necessary for thought itself.
I can explain why consciousness is good evidence for the existence of God, should a God exist. Also that we cannot use philosophy, science, or logic to answer the question of whether a God is involved in our existence, or is not.
Punshhh
I already answered this, we don't have sufficient information about existence to determine that consciousness is not a necessity. This is self evident.
— 3017amen
I can't speak for 3017amen, but there are philosophical arguments that consciousness is primary to the experience of existing, idealism for example.
As I have said before, my position is that we don't know and can't say what is entailed in our origins.
From our position of ignorance of the nature of our existence, our world, we cannot consider such things as alternative worlds to the extent that such notional worlds can answer questions about our world. Basically it is more speculation about possibilities, subject to human frailty.
I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.
And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity.
How to Analyze the Use of Metaphors in Literature Scroll down to see a discussion of metaphors
Analysing a Metaphor
You first made the claim that consciousness is necessary for existence. I made counter claim.
Quoting Punshhh
Your response was that we do not understand consciousness nor existence.
In other words, you are saying that something we do not understand is responsible for something else that we also do not understand.
With that in mind, I was wrong to say that consciousness is not necessary for existence. I withdraw that statement and correct myself.
The sentence "consciousness is necessary for existence" is poetry and as such cannot be assigned a truth value.