Mitchell

I hope not.

I'd be interested in seeing an essay comparing and contrasting Marcel'sBeing-in-Situation, Heidegger's Being-in-the-World, and Sartre's Being always i...

Triumph of Christianity A very interesting and easy read.

On Reading Marcel for the first time in 30 years. I bought a copy of Gabriel Marcel’s The Existential Background of Human Dignity at a used-book store...

And it's has the advantage of being short.

If God is "unconceivable" or "inconceivable", that seems to be good reason for saying there is no God.

I think that the cross-cultural similarities in reports of mystical experiences give us prima facie (and only prima facie) evidence of a dimension of ...

I think that this is a too pessimistic evaluation of the epistemic force of mystical experiences.

You are not wrong. He wanted to claim that Aristotle, who did not believe the universe was created, was rational and, in fact, represented the best th...

No, it does not. The chain of causes reaches back in time to the Big Bang. Now if cosmologists are right in thinking that there WAS something before t...

Bertrand Russell once quipped, "Science is what we know; philosophy is what we don't know." While I know that this is not only inadequate, but mislead...

The best example that I know of on this issue is the question whether the fact that Heidegger was a Nazi (for a time) permanently "taints" his work. T...

Do you not agree that there can be MIS-interpretations of a thinker's work? If not, why not? If so, what makes an interpretation mistaken?

No, it was offered by the student as an interpretation of Nietzsche's "Death of God" speech in The Gay Science.

I deny your premise!

No, but some interpretations are better than others. For example, someone, on a FB philosophy group, claimed that Nietzsche believed in God, but was c...

Nope, doesn't help.

Depends on whether you can give an argument about why the author is mistaken about the meaning of what he wrote.

I wish all philosophers would agree with this.

This use of 'soul', both by Plato and by Chalmers, makes it synonymous to 'mind;, it is what unifies, or "contains" the mental states that constitute ...

You make a distinction between Christians and Theists that I don't recognize. On my understanding Christians are Theists.

"Modern science gives no indication whatever of the existence of the soul or mind as an entity; indeed the reasons for disbelieving in the soul are ve...

reducible to what? I am really not understanding the way that term, and its opposite, is being used in this discussion. Again, there are two fundament...

I don't know what this means. Why accept that there is such a thing as a soul, in the first place?

How, then, did the concept of heresy fit into your narrative. It seems to me any variation from the orthodox dogma was labeled "heresy" and ostracized...

This sounds to me like revisionist history. In other words, this may be what believers of today want to believe, given multi-culturalism, global villa...

Now we get closer to what I think is the only plausible reason, though still weak, for believing there is a deity: religious experience.

Actually, it's not so much a fallacy as simply denying the premise. But, of course, whether there is any reason to affirm or deny God's existence is a...

Actually, this entire discussion is moot. There is no God.

If the Scriptures are to count as evidence, then what about the Qu'ran, the Gita, the Upanishads, the Sutras, etc. It seems to me that citing Scriptur...

Exactly, thus the scare-quotes. So now, the question about religious faith is, "Where's the evidence?" IOW, you don't have to "prove" the existence of...

But evidence is. Evidence need not be, and indeed with regard to empirical knowledge, cannot be, "proof". By that definition. But faith, in its ordina...

Where does Aristotle do this?

For him it is. See his two volume work, The Mystery of Being. Despite being 2 volumes, it is a fast read, as far as philosophy goes.

Are you implying that the passage quoted is "lacking in sincerity or meaningful content"?

And the nature of "human existence" is not a metaphysical problem?

R. M. Hare, a non-cognitivist (non-objectivist) moral philosopher, recognized that there was a difference between expressions of emotion and moral utt...

Regarding Emotivism, which is being expressed by some of these responses, there seems to me to be a crucial difference between "I don't like liver" or...

The problem, then, is how are we to think and talk about God? I am reminded of the early Wittgentstein's Boy, Christians would not like that.

Then you might enjoy Bart Ehrman book Lost Christianities. Here is a you-tube interview with him. Ehrman on Lost Christianities

I disagree. While there is no way to come to a resolution, such arguing often enables me to clarify for myself my position, arguments for and against,...

He writes on, defends, and calls us back to, the "Perennial Philosophy, in The Heart of Philosophy

Ah, but does such debate "strengthen and maintain" spirit?

Are you familiar with Jacob Needleman?

Yes. According to Heidegger, in What Is Metaphysics?, the fundamental problem is "Why is there something rather than nothing?" He ruins the question b...

No, you're not. Not by any means.

Whoa!!

Elohim in Genesis 1 seems very different, less anthropomorphic, than the YHWH of Genesis 2 and Exodus 3

Beiser is good.

. Hmm. I think of Philosophy as having both intrinsic and extrinsic value. Extrinsic value because, if done right, it leads to clarity of though, remo...