180 Proof

Why isn't it enough just to be "connected to" or "conduit of God"? Why "channel God" and undergo some (usually abject, mortifying, self-abegnating) "t...

Physical science "is misapplied science"?

So by "non-physical" you mean abstract (i.e. non-causal, time-less & space-less)? For instance, walking is what legs do & digesting is what intestines...

Thanks for this link. How is "scientism" related or relevant to my last post?

The biologist-philosopher's statement is neither "positivist" (i.e. only fact / observation-statements are meaningful) nor "dogma" (i.e. not defeasibl...

Okay. You can't answer my question: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

How does "everything experiences" happen? A rock, a tree, a comatose person – what's the mechanism by which each of them "experiences" at all? Also, i...

Well, "to compute" ain't intention ...

Yes, but that "idea" doesn't define (or describe it in a way that discerns it from its negation / absence): according to you, what is consciousness?

These claims are demonstrably false. :up: Define (non-sapient, non-sentient, non-mental) "consciousness" with an example that contrasts "consciousness...

i.e. Y = "not-X + X" :eyes: :roll: Fwiw, we have this in common (although I do (often) feel – embody – what Schopenhauer calls "der Wille"). :smirk:

Agreed, and I stipulated it's a possibility.

:up: :up: :cool:

This seems to me a genetic fallacy, sir. Given the preponderance of evidence that "observers" (e.g. subjectivities) are chance emergents, it's doubtfu...

Hasty generalization fallacy (re: "creation") derived from your poor physics (re: "beginning"). Appeal to ignorance (i.e. "infinite deity"-of-the-gaps...

https://youtu.be/KzFg8gwRZ-o?si=DEes3SWGhS_Yrwvy I.e. common sense (socialization aka "ideology") can be corrected, or coarse-grained, by science (obs...

:100: :up:

Why don't you answer my question? https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/999752

No one here "debates" ... "God". It's just that many folks spout fallacious apologia of their preferred, effable woo (e.g. "God", "First Cause", "Inte...

Too many non sequitors ... Besides, as @"Leontiskos" points out, the burden of proof is on you – answer my question: https://thephilosophyforum.com/di...

As per Schopenhauer, how can any one/thing not always already be "a conduit for the will ..."?

:roll: :clap: :up:

I'd be surprised if it isn't more than 50% ....

You made the statement so you should answer for it: why "the goal should be equality for humans"?

Why?

I think "a conversation about God" presupposes some idea of the real which usually is neglected and remains vague (or confused). You might find my con...

I suppose it's because we humans are more beasts than angels – human, all too human. Besides, the player never "deserves" the hand s/he's dealt ...

"You're on Earth. There's no cure for that." ~Samuel Beckett, Endgame :fire:

I suspect for some people doing philosophy causes or exacerbates (subclinical) 'depression', and so taking (short? long?) periodic breaks from philoso...

I think Kant means responding to X "as an end-in-itself" (analogous to a moral subject), but I prefer your formulation.

I think God-arguments in philosophy are "really" about what is the real. Afaik, foundherentism works ... I never do. :up: :up:

I only like philosophies of the real.

Clearly, either you didn't read / comprehend my last post (esp. the video clip) or it's just your fatuous disingenuousness wantonly on display again, ...

Yes :up:

:100: :up: :up: :fire: For some it's (almost) a reflex or bias. In so far as "aesthetics" is inherently philosophical, whether or not one makes aesthe...

... is pseudoscience, thus for Einsteinian (as well as Everettian) physics the following still suffice: Three-dimensional continuum. Radiation. Mass. ...

I.e. a distinction without a difference. Why bother? No testable predictions are derived from this "model" so it's not scienrific. No questions go unb...

And minds are governed – constrained – by laws of nature so that, in actuality, logic is also "a property of" nature. Nonhuman animals do not 'invent'...

:up:

Consider this empirical support for transitive inference by nonhuman animals: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0376635708000818]...

:up: :fire: Outstanding clarity! – even woo-addled idealists like @"Gnomon" and @"Wayfarer" should be able to grasp this and (if they're intellectuall...

:up: :up:

This is so because "consciousness" (qualia, intention, feeling, or other folk-percepts), in contrast to observation, on occasion might be a consequenc...

Such as the 'not real' (e.g. ideals, fictions, impossible worlds ...) Who has ever claimed that it is? Cite a single non-idealist philosopher who says...

:fire:

Notice @"Gnomon" did not answer ...

:eyes:

:100:

:up: TBD (by physics, not metaphysics).. e.g. Black holes, cosmic inflation (i.e. accelerated expansion), quantum uncertainty (re: vacuum energy), Pau...

I've no idea what this means, or what "that" refers to. Besides, "implies" doesn't do the work of causes ... :up: :up: