Some people will just be born with the right genes for the right environment to be considered geniuses. There is no need for past lives or spirits to explain that. I tend to favor the metaphysics that “creates” the fewest things and makes sense. You don’t need spirits to explain differences in intelligence and performance so I don’t believe in them. — khaled

It takes decades to develop character and some children are already born with highly developed characters - bad and good...

“Beauty is truth, truth beauty, —that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know” ~ Keats

"Mathematics is beautiful. If it is not, nothing is beautiful" ~ Paul Erdős

I think beauty is beyond biology but biological forms can be a context for beauty.

And this means? — schopenhauer1

It lends credibility to the idea that our spirits exist before we are born. It is clear that many children have highly developed characters at a very early age. This cannot easily be explained by physical science.

It seems that a theory of reincarnation that's based on the existence of verifiable memories of past lives is unfalsifiable, ergo isn't a scientific theory. — TheMadFool

Even unscientific theories can be true. Also, if a person remembers a past life how can we be sure it is their past life? It may be someone else's life they are remembering.

There is no you prior to your birth that could have been something else. — schopenhauer1

Are you sure about this? Many children are born highly developed - Mozart, Picasso, child geniuses etc.

So material cause thus becomes some bare notion of contingency or accident or fluctuation. It is whatever is logically complementary to formal cause. That leads to a Peircean ontology of constraints on contingency. Matter arises from action being given a direction. — apokrisis

As I understand it, the laws of nature are not separate from nature or imposed on nature from outside. Things behave as they do because it is their nature to behave that way. There is only nature, not nature and laws of nature. Matter is what it is because non material energy condensed in a particular way. The Fine Tuning Argument says that energy condensed in a very precise way and as a result the creative potential of matter was optimized. The combinatorial possibilities of matter are immense (Lego!) and this is because of the way energy condensed into matter. If things happened in a different way, matter might just be a blob without much creative potential.

I was simply saying above that we don't fully know what matter is. You say it's energy. But do you know what energy is? How close is the relationship between energy and matter? When energy becomes matter, is there true change or simply a rearrangement or condensation or something? This is what I'm interested in. I am not sure philosophy really has an answer — Gregory

Suppose you have a lump of bronze and you make a statue of an eagle from it. Nothing of substance has been added. Only form has been created - the form of an eagle. When energy condenses into matter only material form is created, nothing of substance is added.

What is energy? If energy is also contingent then there must be a deeper underlying 'energy' upon which energy is contingent. But it's not 'turtles all the way down', there must be a fundamental substance.

How do you know the result is not more real than the process? — Gregory

I'm not saying it is more real. I'm saying the result - matter - is dependent on the cause, energy. This means matter is contingent.

All kinds of things can tempt towards suicide. But if certain philosophies are depressing so too are some philosophies optimistic and life affirming. So, are you reading the right philosophers? Ultimately life itself is its own philosophy. Philosophy in books are an abstraction, that may be far from the truth.

Prove it. Demonstrate what matter even is — Gregory

There is no need to prove it as science already shows that matter is only form. Energy assumes a certain structure and when it does we call it matter. In principle it is possible for all the matter in the universe to evaporate - see The Heat Death of the Universe.

The philosophy you are quoting says objects are formed from pure matter and form. My question is, why only one form? Why only one matter? Why only two principles? Why not five? Materialism says there is one principle per object. It's simpler and doesn't waste people's time — Gregory

Energy is primary, matter is secondary and contingent. Energy is the substance of matter. Matter is substance/energy and form. Form can be dismantled as in nuclear reactions radioactive decay etc.

So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? — Daniel

I think it is a question of approaching things with an open mind and, for me, realizing that God is the most coherent explanation for the world. I would not assume God exists and start arguing from there. I argue about the world I see and experience and then come to the conclusion that the existence of God is the best explanation.

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. — Daniel

Rather than assuming God's existence and arguing from there I think it is better to argue from existence and arrive at an argument for God's existence as being the most persuasive explanation of reality.

As far as we can tell, the human mind is the most evolved, complex entity in the universe thus far. That is what matters. Most of the rest of the universe is a desert, probably populated with remote islands of life.

which I do think is just good in its own right, there is something to be said for humility. — thewonder

True. Philosophy is like a workout for the mind, it teaches us how to think critically provided we don't take ourselves too seriously.

If one's goal were to understand a word, one might suppose that one must first understand the words in its definition. But this process is circular. — Banno

"We cannot define anything precisely. If we attempt to, we get into that paralysis of thought that comes to philosophers, who sit opposite each other, one saying to the other, "You don't know what you are talking about!". The second one says, "What do you mean by know? What do you mean by talking? What do you mean by you?" ~ Richard Feynman

the past where you do things aimlessly and ignorantly seems to be more fulfilling as now you face with the uncertain absurdity of life. Is this true for most of y’all or am I being somewhat nihilistic? — Josh Lee

If living intuitively - "aimlessly and ignorantly" - is more fulfilling than framing one's existence within the box of philosophy then philosophy might be to blame.

I don't think that it is the case that you can say that something like stealing is wrong in every given context. — thewonder

I believe there is a law in Britain that says if you're starving you can steal a few vegetables from a farmer's field without breaking the law. There is always the danger of condescension when it comes to the law/morality or even world views. The central lesson of philosophy is, we don't know. Sometimes I think philosophers are among the most confused people of all because they are wont to believe in their own philosophy.

Theism or Platonism doesn't work as it might posit a formal cause, but is pretty mute about material cause. — apokrisis

Matter is secondary because it is contingent or caused. The cause of matter is beyond matter.

its collective thermal direction that is the entropic gradient we call time. — apokrisis

I don't see entropy as a definition of time. It may be - in most cases - parallel to the arrow of time but it does not define time. Physical time is a physical object in the same way that chairs or tables are, except it has an extra dimension which is why it is called spacetime. I think it is a mistake to equate time with entropy simply because they are moving is the same direction.

A blank everythingness that is neither material, nor enformed. Just a pure vagueness or state of potential. — apokrisis

Yet, the void, or 'chaos' contained within itself, the potential for order, which may mean it is not true chaos.

Morality has always been considered as according to social conventions. — thewonder

Social contexts are just that, a context in which moral standards are interpreted. But morality, in spiritual terms, should be a guard against crimes against life. Life is sacred/valuable (depending on whether we are speaking from a theist/atheist point of view) and this concept is the keystone of moral ideals. For the Jews, morality was not merely a social convention, it was seen to be a representation of God's Justice on earth.

At best, morality relies upon an appeal to a kind of quasi-ascetic superiority complex arbitrated by those who decide who is and isn't virtuous. — thewonder

That is more like an abuse of moral concepts. No doubt, these concepts can be abused in the way that concepts of justice can be abused. But corruptions of moral concepts are not a measure of ideal moral concepts.

If, for the sake of argument, we consider an earlier state of the universe as pure energy sans familiar matter which then, for reasons unknown to us, "coalesced" into matter, would that count as creation ex nihilo? — TheMadFool

In a sense yes because nothing of substance is added to create matter. Matter is nothing in the sense that it is only form.

Dare I say we're afflicted with an illness of a moral nature? We are, like it or not, bad, despite our protestations that we're not. — TheMadFool

Some are good. Most are weakly bad. Some are evil.

I receive some comfort, as little as it may be, from the realization that all that's good in the world comes from mankind. — TheMadFool

But doesn't a dog love its owner? Isn't love the ultimate moral good? The beauty of the world is also a good. Even cats love and defend their 'children'. The good permeates all nature. But the world is fallen.

Corrupt are some religions have become, the loss of Christianity and the moral collapse of society are not merely coincidental. Unless mankind has something higher than mankind to aspire to, things will go badly.

ptolemy's theorem — talminator2856791

I had not heard of that. Very interesting. The Greeks did math by geometry so they may have discovered it geometrically first and then did the algebra.

Thinking takes the same form that your senses provide. — Harry Hindu

What about abstract thought? If you have a pain in your foot and you go to the doctor s/he might tell you that the pain is not really in your foot at all, it is in your brain. Why then, you could ask, does the pain seem to be in your foot? The doctor might go on to say that the brain contextualizes the pain and 'places' it in your foot. But it is not really in your foot...

But this argument can be extended to the mind: the pain is not really in your brain either, it is in your mind. From this it can be argued that the entire physical body is no more than a context; a physical context in which the mind experiences. In fact the entire brain-body-senses context is a physical context in which the mind's experiences are framed. But the mind can also think independently of the bodily context, as The Mad Fool points out.

My position is that the fundamentals can self-exist, because we necessarily have no way of knowing whether the mathematical structure that is identical to our physical universe is dependent on any deeper fundamentally inaccessible structure, so as far as we can tell it does self-exist, and if it can self-exist, there's no reason to suppose that all other mathematical structures don't as well. — Pfhorrest

It is an intriguing idea and, granted, we have not looked deeply enough into reality to go beyond its contingent elements. But I'm sceptical...

The short answer is that numbers aren't the basic elements of math; sets are. Numbers are made of them, as are all other mathematical objects. — Pfhorrest

I know but it doesn't matter how you define these things the question still remains,
how can {0} U {0} = {{0},{0}} have an existence unless it exists in a mind? And if the fundamentals can't 'self-exist' how can the more sophisticated mathematical objects be built on them?

By what means are you aware of your own mind if not by sensing it? What does "perceived" mean? In what manner are you aware of your thinking? What form does thinking and perceiving take to say that you perceive your mind? — Harry Hindu

It seems to me that none of the five senses are required to make us aware of our minds. The mind is conscious over and above the senses. In fact the senses are only a crude imitation of consciousness. Real consciousness is of the mind.

In conclusion, we can be certain of only one thing - the existence of minds - and we can always doubt the reality of the physical world, materialism. — TheMadFool

Matter is not real anyhow. At least not in the naive way our senses lead us to believe. A hydrogen atom is only a geometric condition that energy happens to be in. All that is really there is energy. The physical atom is only an image, a conjuring trick. A sophisticated trick but a trick nonetheless. Likewise with all physical things; they are a condition, not a substance. Reality is energy and mind.

Does anyone know any good resources which talk about what a theory of music is in connection to what a theory in math is or a theory in science is? Bonus points if it references logical positivism or formal first-order logic! — Halley

As an artist I would counter the idea that there can be a theory of aesthetics. I still don't know what art is. It is a mysterious thing. It happens but I don't know how. The poet Bukowski said he writes by a kind of magic. I think any serious attempt to squeeze art into a theory would be counter productive.

If you can’t do something with the “perfect” map that you can do with the territory, then its not really a perfect map. — Pfhorrest

Ok, I'm getting your drift. If the world is really a 'mathematical' abstraction then how is it possible to construct such a world from the atoms and primitive axioms of mathematics?
For example how does 1 + 1 = 2 become 'substantial' enough to evolve into higher and more sophisticated mathematical entities, like group theory etc? Because if mathematics can become something like substance the very atoms of it must also be capable of becoming such. But I don't see how 1 + 1 = 2 can have any reality at all unless it exists in a mind. Abstractions might seem very potent to us but that is because our minds animate them and give them a kind of reality. It seems to me that mind is required to give mathematics any degree of potency. So mind must first exist if abstractions are to exist.

this God of yours is entirely independent of any/all of us and our beliefs, interpretations, daily lives, etc, right? — jorndoe

Our beliefs about God tell us something about God. They may be simple compared to the reality of God but they provide a context in which to comprehend God. George Harrison said "God is not a man with a beard in the clouds - but He is if you want Him to be" In other words, it does not really matter what images we have of God (so long as they are reasonable). What matters is our religious imagery is good enough to form a context into which God can enter.

I know a few persons, presumably you do as well. You also claim to know a person you label God. Would this be Knowing by Acquaintance? — jorndoe

Yes. God can be present in whatever form is acceptable to the witness.

how might we differentiate whether (fictional) characters, (imaginary) beings, (hallucinatory) claims are real or not?

In much the same way as you would discriminate between dreams and reality. There is no clear answer. How do you know you are not dreaming right now? Probably because your present state is similar to all other non dreaming states. You are familiar with reality and can tell you are not dreaming. Likewise with questions about the difference between hallucination and vivid reality. It is not possible to give an exact test between the two but one knows in more subtle ways. The reality of mind and thought is more real than physical tables and chairs. Thought is the source of the world and of matter.

Yet the claim is that this God of yours exists entirely independently of us and our interpretations, yes?
Incidentally — jorndoe

Not entirely. God can be known as a person. That is not total knowledge of God, it is an aspect of God that God wants the individual to understand.

I'm not alone in my realization that the Church peddled nonsense to me and I accepted it for years...but although I have broken away completely, there still is that regard for some of the "rigmarole" of the institution despite my resentment of it. — Frank Apisa

I think it is very difficult to frame theism in general in the context of any religion. Most modern religions have permuted many times over the generations. So much so, it is almost impossible to have philosophical discussions in the context of religious particulars - eg. eating meat.

Karen Armstrong argues that the value of religion is not concerned with whether it is 'true' or 'false'. The real value of religion is that it provides a practical context in which people can practice their faith. After all, religion is as practical as it is theological. It seems to me that modern people have difficulty accepting religion because it is wrapped in so much mythological symbolism. Maybe religion in the future will move on to a more direct expression of revelation.

Evidence could be anything. You show, we take a look. — jorndoe

Exactly. Russell said there was not 'enough evidence' for God's existence. But everything is evidence. Every dust mote, every star, planet and galaxy. The question is 'What is it evidence for?. "Evidence for" is subjective. It is how we interpret the evidence.

it is a general feature of mathematics that whatever we find things in reality to be doing, we can always invent a mathematical structure that behaves exactly, indistinguishably like that, and so say that the things in reality are identical to that mathematical structure. — Pfhorrest

In principle yes, but here you are only talking about contingent things. I'm still having great difficulty seeing how there can only be abstractions 'turtles all the way down'. Suppose you have an abstract mathematical idea. Where does that idea exist? In your mind. But is your mind an abstraction? Even in a computer you can't have abstraction only. You have to go the the shop and buy a substantial computer if you want to compute.

But a perfectly detailed, perfectly accurate map of any territory at 1:1 scale is just an exact replica of that territory, and so is itself a territory in its own right, — Pfhorrest

That begs the question; you can grow cabbages on the real territory but not on the map, so there's a difference.

But whatever model it is that would perfectly map reality in every detail, that would be identical to reality itself. — Pfhorrest

See last answer.

Your need for invisible friends is a piece of personal psychology, and not philosophy. — Banno

This is psychoanalysis. Once you go down that road you can make anything true. Like they say Reality is what your shrink tells you it is.

I don't thing there are any good arguments for God's non-existence. I also don't think beliefs are formed that way. Atheists like me got there by questioning our basis for believing in God, and finding it lacking. — Relativist

I don't think a/theists believe or disbelieve on the basis of intellectual machinations - they are post hoc and apologetic, on both sides. The decision for a/theism is more subtle that that.

My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother? — Relativist

The difference between philosophical arguments and mathematical arguments is mathematical truth is demonstrable. Once proven it can't be unproved. Philosophical arguments are not as focused. There is a lot of wiggle room so people can reject these arguments.

The question could be reversed: Arguments for God's [non] existence do not have the power to convince anyone God [does not] exist - only [A]theists accept them. Why bother?

While people strive for objective truth in philosophy, philosophical arguments can be subjectively interpreted.

The notion that the universe is determined fails. — Banno

To prove non determinism it is sufficient to show that mind transcends determinism. If that were the case a mind can choose to do something - like move a stone - now the stone has been influenced by a non deterministic factor.

SO if I have it right, accepting that God exists, for you, involves accepting a a bunch of obscure, somewhat archaic metaphysical notions. — Banno

That is an extreme rhetorical distortion of what I believe. My beliefs are based on many things including reason - see my last few posts - and many other things too. The world is immensely complex and theism is, for me, the best explanation by far, despite the awful distortions in religion. Religion often gives the wrong view of God but it still has truth within it. I believe mythological religion has served its purpose and maybe in the future humanity will have a more purified spirituality.

There is nothing to stop "anything at all" from coming-to-be, etc. ~Atomism (metaphysics) — 180 Proof

Perhaps there is something because it is possible for there to be something. Much the same argument as above...

That's an awful lot of baggage to drag around behind your notion of God. — Banno

See my post here - https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/8779/turtles-all-the-way-down-in-physics