Pretty simple for you who is writing it and know what you are thinking.

If someone asked me to describe why certain dog is considered a dog, I would say: it is considered a dog because it has fur, four legs, a tail, a wet nose, a stout, canine teeth, paws, it barks, it was born from another dog, it walks on its four legs, etc. I would continue until I have described the dog to the best of my knowledge.
Now I ask you, why you consider the christian god a god. I don't want to know the opinions of Aquinas or Anselm since I am not having a discussion with them nor about them. I want to know YOUR (and believe me, I cannot stress "your" any more) view of the christian god, and I would love it if you could literally list the attributes that you think make the christian god a god. Again, think I am not from this world, and that I have never heard of Jesus, or God, or religion.

I have no idea what you are trying to imply in (1). Are you saying Jesus is God because people believe Jesus to be God? (By the way, I am not a citizen of the United States of America nor I know its history)

About (2); so, you don't believe God is all that omni stuff? What exceptions are you not taking?

Is (3) answering the question, what makes Jesus God?

I posted it on the lounge. If you want to move it to the general philosophy section, go ahead.

What do you mean? The thread was posted on the lounge if that what you are asking. If you want to move it to any of the other sections, I am ok with that.

Still not answering the question I made. I just want someone to describe to me, as best as they can and as concisely as possible, the christian god and why it is considered to be a god (imagine i have never heard of gods or religion).

Why is Jesus God?

I believe there is an origin. I also believe that given certain conditions, you would be able to know all about the origin. I do not believe in the supernatural, intelligent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god of the bible, and I do not believe either that the character of jesus portrayed in the bible is god.

What makes jesus god?

Isn't Jesus the son of God?

Before starting, I think we should agree on a definition of God; you know, just to make sure we are talking about the same thing. As I said, I am not a philosopher, and I am not a theologist, either; so, I am not acquainted with all the terminology used in these fields of study. You said you are a Christian existentialist; I'd like to know how a christian existentialist describes god. What is your idea of god?

Before I can answer your question, I need to know your definition of god.

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL — 3017amen

If by EOG you mean the existence of god, I am down. I am no certified philosopher, but I'd like to give it a try.

I do not know what a question is, hence why I want to find all the things that define a question. So far, I believe the most important requirement for a question to exist is a body that is able to detect/perceive/experience change; that is, for a question to become an object of one's mind (to exist in the mind/to appear in the mind), one must be able to distinguish between previous experiences and what is being newly experienced (or what was unknown). More precisely, one must be able to distinguish between what one has experienced in the past and what one just experienced for the first time (a change between what is known and what is not known is perceived). For this, the capacity of memory would be required, and thus memory is also a requirement for the existence of questions.

So, in summary, I'would say a question arises in the mind when the self is affected by a novel experience AND the self is able to tell that it has never had such experience (how?) AND the self is able to communicate such novel encounter (communicate to what? I have no idea-I'd say itself, but how would the self act on itself?) so that in the process of communicating the novel encounter, the question arises.

Another requirement is that which is unknown and which becomes the subject of the nascent question right after it is experienced for the first time, for example.

Like these requirements there are many more (i.e., language, which would be required to communicate the novel experience). Many of you might think these requirements to be obvious, and they are; I mean, there would not be questions if there is nothing unknown, right? Nonetheless, I want to revisit them because I think this "obviousness" hides more than what it lets us see. That's the reason for most of my questions here, tbh. When I ask your opinion is because I believe each of us hides some truth, truth that no one else can access, truth that is as valuable as the one professed by great philosophers.

nvm, just found the book.

I just want a list of the things you think are required to express a question. A list that is as comprehensive as you can make it.
Also, I'd like to read the essay... do you have any digital copies of it?

Ok. Then let me ask you. What are the requirements for a question to be expressed? I just want a list of the things that you think are needed to express a question. Certainly, there are things that are required for a question to be expressed (i.e., language). What's in your list? Also, taking into account the fact that you cannot express a question if there is not a question to express, how does the question to be expressed becomes an object of that which expresses it?

Why not?

If a question is that which arises from the interaction of what was not known* with the self, then the answer must be what causes what was not known (broadly speaking). In this case, to say that a question has no answer would be the same as to say that that which was not known has no cause (and like you, I cannot think of anything that has such quality). However, is it right to assume that every question arises from the interaction of something which is not known with the self?

*Assuming that that which is not known becomes known as soon as it interacts, directly or indirectly, with the self. You can know something without understanding it.

I am not an expert myself. I do not have a degree in philosophy or religion or ethics, just so you know; so, I am an amateur just like you. For me, the purpose of philosophy is to provide evidence about god/the first cause/the origin by analyzing how the things that surround us behave. Some people tend to approach the problem the other way around, they explain how things behave by assuming the existence of god. The second approach sucks all the fun out of thinking. My best advice to you, keep always in mind that you know nothing. Assuming that we know nothing will lead eventually to good philosophy even if it is not accurate or the best philosophy.

So, we could say that a question requires an unknown associated/related to it, a subject that recognizes what is unknown, and the expression of the question by such subject so that it can exist. However, a question does not need a perceivable response/explanation to exist (the question can exist without me knowing the answer to the question, but an answer exists for all existing questions). Do you agree with this? What would you change? Try to be concise.

I think the idea of god stalls philosophical discussion since it "solves" many of the unknowns with which philosophy deals. In my opinion, you cannot do philosophy when you assume a supernatural entity is the main cause of existence. You can believe in god and do philosophy, but your philosophy cannot be based on the existence of god.

Are there oxygen receptors in olfactory neurons? Can u actually smell oxygen?

Still not answering the question I asked you. There must be something that turns the metaphysical substance (energy) in your theory into physical ideas (or something you recognize). What is it? How do you become aware of the question?

Well, if it is an unexpressed question, ipso facto it is a question... — Banno

You are thinking about the idea of an unexpressed question (which is not an unexpressed question but an idea of one), but you are not thinking about the unexpressed question itself. Thinking requires that you communicate something to yourself. If not communicated at least to the self, can a question exist?

how are you aware of the incomplete potential information that a question presents?

Conservation of energy. — 3017amen

the effect of the unknown (or anything else) on the body dissipates in the form of ideas?

Anyways, that's not the topic of this discussion. I am asking you what it is in the self awareness of an individual which is required for the existence of questions?

A question presupposes that which it asks of. That is, a question is logically prior to it's own answer. (Not mine, source on request; I'm too lazy to find it at the moment.) — tim wood

so, no questions without answers?

I guess....in the most basic sense, the query presupposes the conception in the subject of the response relates directly to the conception in the subject in the query. The response “the color of the dining room is 14ft”, is incoherent with respect to the question “what color is the dining room?”. — Mww

I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say. I understand you are saying that the question, the unknown which causes the question, and its response are all logically (causally?) related. Is this what you mean? If it is, what is it that judges the quality of their relationship? What is it that says: "this response is not of this question?"

Consciousness.

(aka, what is self-awareness.) — 3017amen

I agree with you. I'd like to know why you think questions need self-awareness to exist? what is it in a nascent question which requires self-awareness for such process to exist (to begin; to continue)?

An unknown that relates to it. — Mww

I agree. I'd like to ask you, how would you say the unknown relates to the question? How is a question something about what is unknown? Does the unknown act directly on the question or does it act on something else from which the question then arises? (they are all kind of the same question)

You can map some questions to statements which have binary (maybe trinary , etc...) truth values:

Is the cat black?

Maps to:

The cat is black (with a truth value of true or false). — Devans99

Do you mean a question needs an answer to exist?

You mean an interrogative accent? oral questions do not need question marks to exist if by question mark you mean "?".

why should I live? — niki wonoto

Because you exist(s).

Hey,

What about curiosity? Would you consider curiosity to be a consequence of fear, too? What about the anguish of not knowing? I would say that not all distress/anxiety is a consequence of fear. I think you should pay more attention to curiosity; what causes it?

Anything which doesn't affect something else is by that very nature undetectable and so can't be known to existence. — Michael

If it does exist we can't know that it exists. — Michael

I am assuming that every object that exists is associated to some kind of intrinsic field (i.e., a gravitational field, an electric field, etc). The object and the field are the same thing (assumption); as in, the field cannot exist without the object, and the object cannot exist without the field-or could it? Theoretically, these fields reach to infinity. So, an object, theoretically, interacts with any other object there is. My question is, could there exist an object with an intrinsic field if there were no other objects (not necessarily human beings) which interact with such field.

a field is defined as a region in which each point is affected by a force

Imagine there is a universe in which only one thing exists*. This solitary object produces a field (which would be its potential to interact, or its potential to be experienceable as @Pfhorrest mentioned). The question is, would this field exist when there is no other object to experience it. Would then this solitary object have no field? Could this be a real scenario? or can it just exist in the mind?
(I'd say it can't, not even in the mind-where the object of thought is that, an object of thought).
So, I say that a condition for existence is that there must be an object with a field, and the object that experiences the field**. The field cannot exist without the object that produces it, and the object that produces the field seems to be unable to exist without the field (HUGE assumption). In addition, the field seems to be unable to exist without the thing(s) that perceive it. This is the reason I say, it is not the interaction that defines existence, nor the objects alone. To exist, there must be an interaction and two or more interacting objects. These are conditions of existence.

The interaction is required for existence but not sufficient.
The objects are required for existence but not sufficient.

So, for example, if the self exists, it must interact with something else. If consciousness exists, it must interact with something else. If there was a singularity from which everything came from, it must have interacted with something else. Anything that exists must be interacting with something else. Again, HUGE assumptions.


*I am assuming that no matter the universe, existence is the same everywhere; it must be. To exist is to exist whatever the kind of existence.
** I am assuming that this is the case because I have not found something that exists and does not interact (I know this is not a reason to believe what I believe, but I do not really know any other way to approach this question)

Anything which doesn't affect something else is by that very nature undetectable and so can't be known to existence. — Michael

When you say "can't be known to existence", do you mean it exists, but it cannot be experienced? or do you mean it cannot be at all-it does not exist, in all the sense of the word? Could you elaborate more on that?

Isn't that Newton's first law of motion? The law of inertia? I think he gives proof of it in his Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica; I am just guessing, though, never read it.

Are you saying that an experiential world has no relevance or meaning there? — 3017amen

An experiential world, in the sense of human/intelligent/conscious experience, has relevance and meaning, of course. Our experiences determine our actions which in turn affect our surroundings. We are part of existence/reality; we affect it and it affects us.
However, to experience, an object does not need to be conscious. I prefer the word interaction because it describes experience in more generally applicable terms. Every human experience comes from an interaction. Every object interacts. That's what I mean by every object experiences. I do not mean that all objects are conscious, but that all objects interact. Interaction does not require consciousness (as in Human consciousness). Consciousness, on the other hand requires interaction (assumption). Human experience is just a process analogous to the processes of planetary revolution, or protein folding, for example; analogous in that they are processes (that follow the same natural laws).
The Participatory Anthropic Principle seems to rely heavily in the idea that an "intelligent, information-gathering life form" is required to justify existence. I do not agree with this. I believe that the mere interaction (no matter the kind of) "justifies" the existence of the interacting objects. It is not, however, that the interaction exists before the objects exist since I think that is impossible. How could there exist a capacity of performing an action x without that which performs the action?
It is like if there was a fundamental triad that makes up existence. A triad formed by the interacting objects and the interaction.

If there is a single thing in the universe, we say (or at least I used to) there is existence, in contrast to nothing. I say a single thing in the universe cannot exist since existence requires plurality. Again, it is not the interaction that determines the existence of the interacting objects; instead, I'd say it is the inability of a single object to exist by itself*. Now, why not nothing?

Now, if life did not existed, reality would not be the same. However, I think this does not mean that life is a requirement for existence. If this was the case, any other concurrent process would be entitled to belong to the same category of conditional-for-existence. Maybe they all are. Or maybe something they have in common.

*Again, I am making the assumption that interaction is required for existence and that an object cannot act on itself.

What I meant is that if there was no other force opposing the applied force, then what I said was possible would be possible.

“Weak Anthropic Principle (WAP): the observed values of all physical and cosmological quantities are not equally probable but they take on the values restricted by the requirement that there exist sites where carbon-based life can evolve and by the requirement that the Universe be old enough for it to have already done so.” (The Anthropic Cosmological Principle by John Barrow and Frank Tipler, p. 16)
Taken from: http://www.physics.sfsu.edu/~lwilliam/sota/anth/anthropic_principle_index.html#:~:text=The%20Participatory%20Anthropic%20Principle%20states,and%20probabilities%20from%20superposition%20into

I agree to some extend with this statement; to be more precise, I agree in that existence is conditioned. However, I do not agree that existence depends on life. We are objects just like any other object in the universe. Nothing special if you really think about it (not saying life is insignificant, nothing is). What I am saying is that existence depends on the interaction of at least two things. It could be an electron and a proton, a block and a force, an idea and a conscious mind, or any other system with multiple objects*. This is not the same as saying that the universe exists because life exists or because conscious observers exist. It would be more like saying that the universe exists because there exist at least two interacting things.

The other subcategories of the Anthropic principle seem to rely more in the existence of conscious beings. Again, I completely disagree with that.

*I say multiple objects because I am assuming that no unity/particular can act on itself (the forces would cancel to 0-@TheMadFool, maybe a case in which there is cause but not effect?) and that to interact is a requirement of existence.

Then there's the issue of degrees or levels if you will. Take the example of a block of stone that weighs 10 Newtons. If we exert a force less than 10 Newtons, the block won't budge. Only when a 10 Newton or greater force is applied to the block, the block can be lifted. In such a situation, are we to conclude that the forces 1 or 4 or 5.6 Newtons (less than 10 Newtons) are causes with no effects? :chin: — TheMadFool

If there was no friction, an infinitesimal force would be able to move a huge object. Again, that the block does not move does not reflect absence of effect. At the microscopic level, a bunch of non-covalent bonds are being broken. The forces that are unable to move the object have not broken a statistically significant amount of bonds to overcome friction and make the object move. They have an effect, nonetheless.

How does one distinguish something, an x, that has no effect from something else, a y, that can't possibly be a cause. In all probability, x has to be within the light cone of whatever is being considered an effect and y would lie outside the light cone.

This alone may not suffice for to infer causation there seems to be other essential requirements. For instance, if we're investigating the cause of a fire that started at 5:00 AM, many events will have occured in the light cone of spot where the fire began. Suppose we look at 1 second prior to the fire, the light cone will be a "sphere"(?)186,000 miles in radius. It's possible that within a sphere of that size, two lovers could be kissing, a vehicular collision could occur, and so on. However, knowing the mechanism of fire - heat + oxygen + fuel - that the kiss between the lovers or the traffic collision could be a cause of the fire is ruled out. — TheMadFool

For this part, I do not quite understand what you are trying to say. Could you elaborate/explain in other words?

I do not think you answered my question. I just want to know how panpsychism explains the fact that there is something instead of nothing. Why do thinks exist, according to panpsychism?

I'd say time is perceived change. Change is ubiquitous. Change requires an interaction, a term that implies the existence of that which interacts. Thus, I'd say time is perceived change which is brought about by the interaction of two or more objects. The perception of change is carried by the interacting objects (not a third party observer); and because there are no two things that are the same, each perception of change is different; but because the interaction is the same for the interacting objects, their perceptions of change must be related by some factor.

I am not familiar with panpsychism. Could you explain to me how panpsychism explains existence?