Plotinus spoke of having the experience of being present to the source from which our souls descended. The move is accompanied by a cosmogony where the veil between our lives and the "eternal" is very thin.

Plato did not describe the limits of knowledge that way. Neither did Aristotle. — Paine

Need more elaboration with the reference on this point.

I should have asked who they are. I don't think there is anywhere in the dialogues that Socrates makes any claim about the gods. He does, however, refer to common beliefs about the gods. — Fooloso4

Have you read the other Plato such as Timaeus? It is filled with cosmogony and the Gods.

Don't those you just listed believe in a transcendent realm that can be known directly? Isn't that a feature of mysticism? — Fooloso4

Of course they do, but what I meant was the others from the philosophers, not from the mystics.

You're arguing that God is the word God and not the word God, which is a contradiction. — night912

You seem to be confused with God and the word God. They are not the same. God is the god, and his residence is in the word "God". You are not able to distinguish between the two i.e. God and the word God. They are different concept.

God manifests into the physical space and time whenever it is called by the word God. We know God by the word, but when we make up the sentences with the word God, it is not the same concept. The word God then become a metaphysical entity in the sentence where it instantiates.

I don't think so. Knowledge of the Forms is a matter of direct, unmediated apprehension. From and earlier post: — Fooloso4

Whose direct, unmediated apprehension? Are we able to apprehend them via direct unmediated apprehension, or the Gods?

If we can apprehend them, then it seems to be a bridgeable gap between the world of the Forms and the world of materials. Why was your reply a negative?

The Forms are hypotheticals. — Fooloso4

In what sense? Is it what Plato said?

if the gods are noble and good then we are wise to know that we do not know anything about them. — Fooloso4

We don't know if the gods are noble and good. That is what Socrates said maybe, but does he give the reasons and proofs why the gods are noble and good?

On whose part? On my reading the transcendent realm of Forms from the Republic is Plato's philosophic poetry. An image to compel the lover of wisdom to continue to journey. — Fooloso4

The transcendent realm of Forms from the Republic were the founding principles of the later occultism, Gnosticism, mysticism, and the Hermetic Kabbalists in the medieval times. There seems to be far more implications to the concept than just a philosophical poetry.

Others believe it exists and that there are some who have direct knowledge of it. — Fooloso4

Who are the "Others"? Any verification details on their beliefs of the existence via their direct knowledge?

Knowledge of a reality that transcends our everyday reality. In line with the Republic it would be knowledge of the Forms. — Fooloso4

Is the gap between the knowledge of the Forms and everyday life bridgeable by any actions or methods? Or are they two distinct entities which are inaccessible to each other?

In Plato's Apology Socrates makes a distinction between human wisdom, which is knowledge of our ignorance, and divine wisdom. Socrates says he knows nothing noble and good, (21d) It is reserved for the gods because they know such things and we don't. — Fooloso4

So it seems clear that they are claiming the existence of the gods, and the knowledge of the gods. But do they try to verify them via reasoning and logic? or do they keep silence on the presumed and presupposed divine existence?

Whatever the case, doesn't it sound like some sort of mysticism going on here? The world of idea which is different from the world of everyday life, possibility of the transition of souls into the world of idea after death, and the existence of divine knowledge that they admit, but don't know what they are ...etc sound like a form of mysticism.

On my reading the philosopher does not possess such knowledge. It is reserved for the gods. — Fooloso4

What do you mean by "such knowledge"? Why is it reserved for the gods? Which gods do you mean here?

Since subjectivity exists in human minds, not in the objective universe, "proving" subjective entities "exist" is possible, yet meaningless. I'm convinced beauty exists, so does my neighbor, BUT what I find beautiful is totally different from what he does. We're both "right", yet being so correct doesn't further anyone's understanding of anything. It's just a word game, leading nowhere. — LuckyR

But from non religious philosophical point of view on religion, we could still study the different religions on their definition of Gods, principles, the religious claims etc from the academic angle investigating logically and metaphysically. It is the oldest human mental and metaphysical tradition and phenomenon.

To say that God is a subjective entity, impossible to prove, therefore meaningless sounds meaningless and shallow thinking.

From a functional standpoint god definitions are essentially subjective, since each religion, and each worshipper within the religion, gets to decide what THEIR god means to them, essentially their "definition" of god, that you are focused upon. Just as we all decide what we find beautiful, we all get to decide what our god is or isn't like. — LuckyR

This is not making sense either. Religion is not something that you take up, and fantasise about the God. If you decided to take up a religion, then you would be expected to read up on the principles and traditions of the religion. and study the objective definition of God, and be knowledgeable about the God.

Once you take up a religion, then that would be your religion for the rest of your life accepting all the code of conducts, principles and definition of the God. Having done all that, you wouldn't be going out comparing your God with the other religious Gods criticising, judging or doubting them.

Uummm... I was pointing out that humans invented the concept of omnipotent gods relatively recently, that is: for a long time gods weren't omnipotent. Thus it isn't MY choosing a single "scenario". — LuckyR

Your claim here is ambiguous. You seem to be saying if something was invented by humans recently, then it is not something. Is it correct? Could you justify your premise and argument? It seems unsound and not even valid, and is discarded as nonsense.

I am not sure what God you are talking about, but if we talk about the Christianity, then omnipotence of God is evidently implied in the Bible describing the creation of the world and humans by the God. God can also allow people to resurrect after their deaths ... etc. It sounds too naive to say that omnipotence of God is recently invented by humans, therefore not omnipotence. It screams a loud contradiction here.

Unless you are talking about a woman you met recently as your God, it is quite reasonable to assume religious Gods are omnipotent.

My avatar agrees. — Pantagruel

I didn't know it was Descartes. I used to think it was some bloke on a bank note of some country. It seems then, images alone cannot become knowledge. Image needs the corresponding ideas or concepts to be qualified as knowledge.

When ideas and concepts alone are perceived, it is also not clear knowledge. The supplementary images for the idea or concept would help for forming more realistic knowledge.

Even then, after knowing the bloke in the avatar is Descartes, I don't know much about the real Descartes. It will be a gradual process to have more degree of real knowledge about him, if I keep reading on Descartes through time.

It was a possible scenario post when you chose the definition of God with omnipotence. It was not my own definition of God. Remember my definition of God was God in the word God? You seem to be too prejudging without knowing what is going on in the posts.

You still have not given out what your definition of God is.

ergo sum — Pantagruel

Descartes was right in saying the most self evident reality is"cogito" or "Ich denke" in Kant. All other reality is based on it. Indeed one cannot doubt one is thinking. In Kant, all experience is based on Ich denke, so it is the a priori precondition for possibility of all existence.

There's also a pragmatic problem with your first premise: in deductive logic, the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Your premise implies conclusions are not necessarily true, because there's always a background contingency on God's will. This invalidates the use of deductive logic - so the argument is self-defeating. — Relativist

You were quite correct to point out the unsound premise, and rejected it. Even if the argument was valid, it is unsound. The conclusion is self-defeating therefore is a nonsense.

What else can that "more" be if not "more real"? — Pantagruel

Cogito

With regard to mysticism - there is a lot of different stuff called mysticism. If we regard mysticism as the experience of a reality that transcends our everyday reality, that is something I know nothing about. — Fooloso4

Mysticism is about the hidden knowledge. In Plato, truth is supposed to be hidden until it is disclosed (alethia). Does it mean truth is mysticism in Plato?

This argument just comes down to our definition of real. This definition of real is that anything that exists is real. Both fake and real are real because they exist. — Hyper

When you are using the definition of real as existing, you must supply what is real after the real.
For example, "Socrates was a real person." This sounds right.

It sounds ambiguous, contradictory and illogical to say, Socrates was real, or fake is real.

Thus the majority of gods are not omnipotent. — LuckyR

Why is it the case? How potent are they? or are they potent at all?

Your conclusion contradicts the law of non-contradiction. That makes it a fallacy, even though it has a valid form. — Relativist

The point was just to demonstrate how the valid logical arguments can have unsound conclusion, and not useful in practicality.

Validity in logic doesn't mean much apart from the fact that it proves the conclusion was followed from the premises, be it sound or unsound.

I think this is entirely not supporting your point. Which I do get. — AmadeusD

Again, your replies are just your personal claims saying my points are wrong, or you think it is not supporting my points. I am not seeing any philosophical arguments why my points are wrong and why not supported.

You need to give out your counter arguments on my points with some reasoning and evidence with your claims. If not, I cannot accept your claims as legitimate philosophical arguments.

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid. — Relativist

If God is omnipotent, then God can turn contradiction into truth.
God is omnipotent. (under the definition)
Therefore God can turn contradiction into truth.

It may not be a true argument, but it certainly looks valid.

If you have some supposed deduction that concludes "contradiction is truth", then your argument is invalid. — Relativist

If you accept the definition of God with omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence, then your omnipotent God can make contradiction into truth. He can do anything. Miracles, magic, afterlife and heaven and hell, resurrections are all possible and truths.

It was just to say that logic with contradiction doesn't give us truth. It falls into the circular nonsense.

I said that everything exists, not that everything has the same utility. — Hyper

Of course everything exists. No problem with that. Problem is your claim that fake is also real just because it exists in the real world. That is a leap of reasoning gone over the barrier of common sense.

Fake exists as fake, and real exists as real. Let's not confused about that.

It proves the being of you do exist albeit in different mode.

is your knowledge of your own being knowledge of something objectively existent? — Wayfarer

You cannot be the same being twice.

but it actually doesn't. — Wayfarer

Why not?

The Greek word psychē translates to "soul" and can also mean "spirit", "ghost", or "self". — Wayfarer

Suppose the ancient Greeks used to believe in the existence of souls, which are to be transferred to the world of idea when body dies. For the Platonic idealists, the world of idea would have been more real than the material world. Hence the reason why Socrates chose to die rather than accepting the offered pardon? He wanted to be in the world of idea rather than the world of matter. :D

'substances' (or is that 'subjects'?) can be understood as constitutive elements of reality. I think, for us, it is almost unavoidable to conceive of such purported constituents as being objectively real in the same sense as the putative objects of physics, but in pre-modern philosophy the meaning is much nearer to 'soul' or psyche. — Wayfarer

Substance as soul or psyche? Where does the suggestion come from?

If you accept God itself is a being with omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence, then it is not a contradiction. In the world of God itself under this definition, even contradiction is truth.

You need to accept there are many different definitions of God. Depending on the definition, proof methods will differ.

What is your definitions of God?

My definition of God was "God" in the word, and it is God itself.

OK. The passage caught my eyes, as I was just about to start re-reading some Heidegger books.

due to the fact that modern philosophy and culture has no concept of there being degrees of reality — Wayfarer

Doesn't Heidegger's concept of world in Being and Time include the concept of reality?

Words represent objects and entities in the world, but words themselves are not representation.

I don't think we have any grounds to say we have different modes of perception. — AmadeusD

I think we do. There are a plethora of different types of objects in the world for our perception. And our perception works in different ways for different objects in different situations. Sometimes we have to use microscopes, telescopes, radars, computers in order to perceive objects. Sometimes we just need a pair of bare eyes and ears to perceive. Sometimes we concentrate on the objects while perceiving, and other times we have flashing passing ideas and images for some new ideas, while walking or even in sleeping. It is a very rich and complicated system.

Fake objects exist as fakes, and their properties are fake. Real objects have the real properties when examined and proved. Fake cannot be real and reals are not fakes just because they exist in the real world.

1. Evolution and trends
2. Trends and ethical principles derived from them (THIS POST) — Seeker25

What do Ethical Principles mean? What is the relationship between ethical principles and trends? Why are they relevant?

Ergo God does not exist.

If God does not exist, then God exists.
God does not exist.
Therefore God exists. :smirk:

These are all objects, hence the above. I think you're talking about perceiving our interactions with objects, which appears direct. True, and its possible we are 'directly' touching the cup. But our perception is not of that interaction. It is a representation of it. — AmadeusD

You are grossly misunderstanding what I said. I never said that perception is interaction. What I said was that we can interact with some objects we perceive. We can also access the perceived objects directly i.e. I can open and close the book in front of me, I can read it. If it is an apple, you can see it, but also peel it, and eat it. This is the real perception. You read the real book, peel the real apple, and eat the real apple directly. You are not seeing and reading the book in front of you indirectly, but directly because it is touchable, visible and readable i.e. accessible and interactable.

But if you are seeing a new book in Amazon, you are only seeing the image of the book with some info about it. You are seeing the book indirectly. You are still seeing the book, but it is not the real book.

If you see apples in your neighbor's garden apple tree distance away, then you see the apples, but not quite sure what type of apples they are. They could be cooking apple, or could be red delicious. You don't know if they have bugs eaten the apple from the distance. You only have prehension of the apple. Then you would add some of your imagination on your perception of the apples, and perceive them. This could be called indirect realist's account of perception.

But I feel this division of DR or IDR arguments in perception is pointless and fruitless. Because as I said already there are different types of perception depending on the situation, the types of objects perceived, and human mind can be fed with the perceptual info in different ways via different sensory organs.

You read time from your watch or clocks, but you also perceive time via your stomach when you feel hungry in the mid afternoon, you know it is lunch time etc. Anyhow, I could go on with a plethora of examples, but I hope you get the point.

Sleep is defined as a state of unconsciousness, making these claims a bit dubious to me. — AmadeusD

Sleep is not a state of total unconsciousness. Your body is fully functional in the biological level while asleep. And even mentally you are not totally unconscious. If you are totally unconscious, then you wouldn't know when to get up, or hear the loud scream or shouting telling you get up time to go to work.

In sleep, you are still perceiving the part of your bodily states, so you feel comfort or discomfort, and you are perceiving your dreams in the dream world, even if you might not be able to remember what your dream was about.