I prefer Mario Bunge, but people don't like him : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I see.

Nah. You'll be fine. You're under no obligation to read Hegel, in any way, shape, or form. — Arcane Sandwich

Ok, and thanks.

Well MoK, an atheist such as myself would say that God does not exist. And I say that as a Hegelian. Why? Because the Ultimate Synthesis, for Hegel, is the following one:

Ultimate Thesis: Art Itself
Ultimate anti-Thesis: Religion Itself
Ultimate Synthesis: Philosophy Itself.

In other words, MoK, according to Hegel, the following formula is True (it has a "T" value):
Philosophy > (Art + Religion). — Arcane Sandwich

What is art to Hegel? What is religion to Hegel? What is philosophy to Hegel?

Not at all, I don't mind at all. Here you go:

Affirmation: Synthesis.
Negation: Analysis.
Negation of the Negation: Affirmation of the Affirmation.

The last one is the polemical one. ; ) — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your input. It is now necessary that I read more on Hegel.

Hmmm... do I believe you? : )
Should I believe you? : D — Arcane Sandwich

I only lie when my life is in danger! :)

Is that a promise?
If so, is that a promise to me?
Or to yourself? — Arcane Sandwich

A promise to you and myself. Thanks for introducing Hegel to me.

Why think that all physical changes are due to experience? — wonderer1

Because I have a physical body and I also have experience. I am not saying that all changes are due to experience since there could be a type of physical that changes on its own. This change however goes unnoticed since otherwise the change requires experience.

This part is a summary of the old debate between idealism and materialism. — Arcane Sandwich

Here, I am arguing in favor of new substance dualism. Both materialism and idealism are sort of monism. I don't think that materialism is true because of a phenomenon so-called experience. Idealism also is not true because the ideas are coherent, the memory exists, etc.

Suggestion: analysis is the anti-Thesis of synthesis. That's what makes it dialectical, and hence, Hegelian. — Arcane Sandwich

I don't understand what you mean here. Do you mind elaborating?

This argument has a Hegelian structure:

P1) First Thesis
P2) First anti-Thesis
C1) Therefore, First Synthesis (from P1 and P2) = Second Thesis
P3) Second anti-Thesis
C2) Therefore, Second Synthesis (from P1, C1, and P3) = Third Thesis
P4) Third anti-Thesis (1st New Thesis)
P5) First analysis (1st New anti-Thesis)
C3) Therefore, 1st New Synthesis (from P4 and P5) = Fourth Thesis
C4) Therefore, Third Synthesis (from C2 and C3). — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your input. I was not aware of this. I will read more on Hegel when I have time.

There's nothing to criticize or input — Arcane Sandwich

Thanks for your confirmation.

It's a Hegelian argument, what do you expect? : ) — Arcane Sandwich

Oh, I didn't know that!

The statement: "Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic world." is false. — Truth Seeker

It is correct given the definition of doubt.

If we accept that God exists for the sake of argument then God is either the result of evolution or He simply exists as an Omniscient, Omnipresent, and Omnipotent. However, God's substance could be corruptible or incorruptible so He is either the subject of destruction because of aging or He can live forever.

Thanks for supporting the site for all these years!

There are arguments for the uncaused cause, such as Aquinas's argument from change. However, he mixes the concept of God, the creator of creation from nothing, with the uncaused cause. Here, I am trying to establish that the uncaused cause and God are different.

There are arguments for the existence of God. For example, the argument from motion by Aquinas:

1. Some things in the world change.
2. Everything that changes is caused to do so.
3. Nothing is its own cause.
4. Therefore, things that change are caused to do so by something else.
5. There cannot be an infinite regress of such causes.
6. Therefore, there is an ultimate, unchanging cause of change.
7. God is the ultimate, changeless cause of change
8. Therefore, God exists.

However, this argument has problems: 3 is not necessarily true, and there is a jump from 6 to 7. I developed a new argument for the uncaused cause that you can find here. As always, your criticisms and input are welcome.

I am not a philosopher by a physicist by training so I need the help of other philosophers to refine my ideas and make them concrete. Thank you very much for your very positive contribution to this thread.

OK, thanks.

Doubts are not allowed in a deterministic world. Everything is certain in a deterministic world since by definition determinism refers to a worldview in which each state of matter uniquely defines another state of matter later. So, I ask you this question whether you have ever had a doubt. If yes, then we are dealing with a problem, the problem being how doubt is possible. I don't think that anyone has a clear answer to this. So to me, the mental phenomena are not easy to understand and do not follow the rule of determinism.

That's an extremely complicated question as far as Hegelian scholarship is concerned. Why don't you tell me what you think about it, in order to see if your view matches Hegel's view? — Arcane Sandwich

Well, I think my understanding of His work is not complete as I only spent a few hours reading the article that I cited. In this article, it is mentioned that "In this interpretation, the notion of the subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge.". That seems to be one interpretation though so I was unsure whether my understanding is correct or not.

As I said, you are not interested in discussing the OP. That is all right to me. Other philosophers in this forum are interested in the topic though. My main reason for opening this thread was to discuss that the idea of uncaused cause and God are not one, where the uncaused cause is an unchanging thing and cause of all changes whereas God is the creator. To me, this is a significant contribution.

It's the standard, mainstream interpretation of Hegel, and it's more or less correct. — Arcane Sandwich

Please correct me if I am wrong, so according to Hegel, the subject refers to self-consciousness and self-knowledge of a being.

I see and thanks for your post.

I thought you were interested in discussing the OP. It seems you are not. So the end of the discussion.

But if the argument is full of nonsense, then should it not be pointed out? Claiming the clarification process as off-topic sounds irrational too. — Corvus

It is not irrational. To focus on an argument we have to limit the scope of discussion, otherwise, we don't get anywhere.

OK fair enough. But you know philosophical topics cannot be discussed meaningfully without reference to reality and the facts of the world we live in. Truth, logic and the laws of reasoning are based on the reality and the facts of the world, and they always come first in the proof process.

Hence an If statement with non-factual premises will be rejected. Some folks will say it is denial of antecedent. I say, it is a nonsense. Reality and the facts of the world is the basis of logical arguments. — Corvus

What do you think of the argument in OP? Here is the final form of the argument:

P1) God exists and is the creator of the creation from nothing
P2) If so, then there is a situation in which only God exists
P3) If so, then God is in an undecided state about the act of creation when only God exists
P4) If so, then the act of creation is only possible if God goes from an undecided state to a decided state
P5) If so, then the act of creation requires a change in God
P6) If so, then God changes
C) So, God changes

Substance is a form of physical matter i.e. tangible, visible, locatable ...etc. — Corvus

That is not how I defined a substance.

God is not a physical matter, is it? Could you prove God is a physical matter? Definition is not a proof. Some definitions need proof to be meaningful. — Corvus

I don't believe that God is made of matter; otherwise, God would be visible to us. That also applies to spiritual agents.

When you say A caused B, you must be able to give out the detail of the cause. Simply saying A caused B, is not meaningful or informative.

If a stone caused window to break. It has further implied explanation that someone threw a stone at the window, which caused breaking. — Corvus

This is off-topic too but I answer that. I make a distinction between due to cause and ultimate cause. By due to cause I mean that there exists something without it a change is not possible. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the stone is due to cause. By the ultimate cause, I mean that there exists something that is the cause of all changes. I call this thing the unmoved mover. So, in the example of a stone breaking a window, the motion of the stone and the change in the state of the window are caused by the uncaused cause.

How though? — Corvus

This is off-topic. As I mentioned in the OP, I am not willing to discuss whether P1 is true or false. So I am not willing to discuss how the act of creation from nothing is possible either. I assume that P1 is true and see what this assumption leads to.

Sure, but it is not informative to be meaningful in saying that God is a substance. — Corvus

It is informative in my opinion. A car is a substance, by this I mean it is made of matter, and it has a set of properties, such as form, color, weight, etc.

@Arcane Sandwich
I read the quotes that you mentioned a few times but I have difficulty understanding them. So, I searched on the net and I found an article from Christian Klotz entitled "Substance and Subject, from Kant to Hegel". From my reading, it seems there are two interpretations of Hegel's idea of what the subject is. Let's discuss the first interpretation first: "Thus, Charles Tayler explains the Hegelian claim that the Absolute is equally subject in the following way: “God thus posits the world in order to think himself in it” (Taylor, 1975, p. 108). According to Taylor, in Hegel’s conception the world is understood as that expression of God which is necessary for God’s selfknowledge. In this interpretation, the notion of subject which is involved in the Hegelian claims signifies a mode of being which essentially involves self-consciousness or self-knowledge."

What do you think of this interpretation?

Saying X is a substance sounds not informative. It needs further elaboration with detail and evidence. — Corvus

I already defined a substance as something that exists and has a set of properties.

The creator of the creation from nothing? What does it mean? — Corvus

We have two different types of acts, 1) The act of building and 2) The act of creation from nothing. By first, I mean that there exists a substance and an agent changes the form of the substance, such as building a car, constructing ideas in the human brain, etc. By second, I mean there is no substance but an agent. This agent can cause a new substance though.

Is it from the Bible? — Corvus

It is a general belief of theists.

What is "the creation" here? — Corvus

A new substance that is caused by God as is illustrated above when I discuss the act of creation from nothing.

Sure.

If God is substance, then God is the creator of the creation from nothing. Is it what you are saying? — Corvus

No, I am saying that God is a substance and the creator of the creation from nothing.

But there are billions of things which exist and have a set of properties in the world. Are they all God? — Corvus

No, God by definition is the creator of the creation from nothing.

Cool. So doubts are real and this means that options are real as well. We however don't know the source of doubts.

We never know all the long-term consequences of our actions. — Truth Seeker

Then options are real if you don't know the consequences of your actions.

Neural nets - as in, things like Chat GPT - have doubts. They have ways of representing internal confidence levels about their models about the data they're ingesting. — flannel jesus

Interesting article. It however does not explain what is the source of doubts.