But the problem arises when we ask: will other rocks or the same rock also fall like that in similar circumstances in the future? Do we have any rational justification for this claim, or at least for the view that it will probably happen? — Amalac

When that problem arises, we decide to believe that other rocks will fall, but as soon as we find a rock that does not fall, we shall revise our belief.

there is no rational justification. It is instead a question of belief, and as beliefs go, there are false ones and correct ones. As long as a belief is fulfilled, we hold it; once a belief is found to be wrong, we abandon it (or improve on its features, details, mechanisms).

I think your counter argument is that if there is nothing known of a thing, then it is silly to say it exists or not. That may be true, that it is silly to be even ambivalent about it; but it is wrong to say it exists for sure, and it is also wrong to say that for sure it does not exist.

Ambivalence is silly, denial or assertion is wrong.

"there is a thing I know nothing about, but it exists."

"You are wrong. The thing that you and I know nothing about does not exist."

Which one is sillier?

↪god must be atheist Silly dodge. Again. I'll take that as a sign you can't answer my question from, which it's reasonable for me to surmise that "possible for X to exist", absent any data on X, is nonsense. — 180 Proof

The assertion that X exists is nonsense in the absence of any data. But it is also silly to insist that it is impossible for X to exist, even if there is no data.

After all, by insisting, we claim our knowledge of it. Our knowledge is not absolute. If there is something that we don't know, because we have no data on it, does not exclude its possibility of existence.

Of course it is impossible to prove that things that we don't know exist, and it is silly to name and say their attributes and say "these things exist for sure." But it is also silly to insist that they don't exist and offer up their non-existence as a proven fact.

The story of love and the human condition. I would present not in my own words, but in Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up In Blue".

Or maybe in the words and sounds of "Tin Soldier" and "Itchycoo Park" by the small faces.

Or by "She loves you, yeah, yeah, yeah" by the Beatles.

Is it the pornography itself that's the problem or the people who miss use it the problem? — Huh

I think the main use of pornography is its facility to generate an ambience of autoerotica. So what would be a miss use of it? Using it as a basis of God worship? Using it as a guide to build nuclear silos? Using it as an instruction set to put to gether IKEA furniture? Using it as a basis for creating tax laws on international trade of electric bicycles? What? Using it as a pattern for funeral arrangements?

I think they are bad because shows a fiction that does not happen in reality. — javi2541997

Most fiction does not happen in reality. To show that porn is bad because of that, first you must show that fiction is bad. I think.

Ah. So what attribute or qualilty did I ascribe to god? None.

I only ascribed qualities to god on the provisio if the bible were true. But I don't accept that, I just presented that scenario. None of the funky claims that the bible describes do I make my own. But I show you there in that post, that those who DO make the claims of their bible their own, then they are in for a big surprise, because their acceptance is deceitful by the provisional entity, who deceives them big time.

This may be a bit convoluted for you. So here's the simpler version:

I don't believe the bible; I am saying those who believe it are deceived.

I don't believe that god has attributes that are known to us; but those who accept the attributes ascribed to god in the bible are mislead.

I hope this makes sense to you. If not, I wash my hands, and you please ask someone else to explain it to you.

it is their problem, they just don't know it. Much like you are denying it, although you know about it, that there is a problem for Christians, and it's huge. But faith is much stronger than facts, reason or logic for some people. You are one of them.

Do what?

obviously the problem is that of the Christians. They are damned any way. So if you think that's not a problem, then you got a problem.

God’s revelation is bogus! — Wayfarer

It is easy to prove that the bible is not god's reveleation. If it were, it would not contain self-contradicting features. And there are plenty in the bible. So... an entity that contradicts its own story of existence, is like the paradox "I always lie".

If god instigated the bible, and it were not common man's fairy tales, then it would not have the contradictions included in it, because somewhere it says "this is the truth", which means there are no contradictions. But there are. So this can't be the truth.

Unless, of course, Christians accept that their god is misleading them on purpose. "this is the truth" while it's not, is a clear admittance of unfair play.

What is a Christian to do? Damned if he does, damned if he doesn't.

And whose problem is that? — baker

This is a problem for those who want to advocate that god exists for sure. And an even bigger problem for those who want to convince others that their description of god is true, because no description of god exists, to date. God, if exists, shows no qualities or attributes of himself. Those who proclaim they know god's attributes and qualities are merely liars, charlatans, dishonest persons, or at best, mislead persons.

My question is about your use of the modal term "possible" as "the only known quality of god" — 180 Proof

My dear 180: we already agreed, from the looks of it, that existence is not a quality or an attribute.

You somehow mistook the qualifier: "possible" for god, and not for god's existence. You must understand that I said, in unmistakable terms, that it is god's existence is possible, but not necessary. Not a quality of god.

You're pinning "intentention" on my post as the process of creation of consciousness. That is unfair, although it makes no difference whatsoever.

You say god creates consciousness. (I think you are saying that; correct me if I am wrong, please.) I agree with your\ if you say you believe god creates consciousness. But I highly doubt your authenticity and your being right if you say you KNOW god creates consciousness. An entity that you don't have any clue about (since the entity has never ever revealed anything of the entity's self) is not something that you can hang such an important role on, realistically speaking, as creating consciousness (intentionally or not). God never revealed any of its qualities or attributes; it never even revealed it exists; and yet you speak of an ability of god as god's own private and exclusive ability.

I said that populist 'philosophers' will boil everything down to them. — Bartricks

And that is not true, either.

Anyway, this guy does not appear to be an academic philosopher, or even to have a PhD in the subject, so far as I can tell. — Bartricks

Your opinion in this matter is respected, but it does not make any difference in our eagerness to listen to this Pierce.

Really? If we know nothing about any of g/G's other "qualities", how do we then know it's even possible (yet not necessary) for it to exist? — 180 Proof

You are raising the point that existence is a quality or attribute. There is a debate on that. A huge debate. I am on the opinion (feel free to disagree) that existence precedes the ability to have qualities and attributes. Without existence it is impossible to have qualities and attributes. Therefore existence is such a basic quality or attribute, that it can't be a differentiator -- everything in existence has existence, and the qualities and attributes may very well vary. Therefore, since existence is an across-the-board undifferentiated quality or attribute for everything existing, itself existence is not an attribute or quality.

Thank you. That was actually grand of you. And I am not being facetious.

Okay, let's see if I can get through to you another way.

Show me the scientific article, published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, that precisely states that scientists proved that the sun will rise tomorrow, and that scientists proved that if you jump off from the roof of your house you will fall instead of float.

Make no mistake: show me the proof as articled in a published text in a scientific journal.

Are you going to say scientists don't claim that it is more likely for the sun to rise tomorrow, or that if I jump from the roof of my house I will fall instead of starting to float? — Amalac

They may say that, but they offer no PROOF, please get that into your head.

But don't scientists make claims about probability that they think they have proven? — Amalac

Read my lips: scientists don't think they have proven anything.

Get that into your head, and everything will fall into place.

I accept that consciousness is created. But who says it is created by god? It could be created by a salamander. Or a black hole in the vast expanse of the universe. They are NOT GOD.

You seem to INSIST that consciousness is created by god. Why are you so sure about that?

"Imagine that there are two distinct worlds that share the same physical laws but are different in that consciousness can emerge from one but not the other. Now imagine two systems, one from each world, that are physically identical to each other but are different in that one is conscious while the other is not. As you can see, it is possible to imagine this scenario because supposing the existence or non-existence of consciousness is of no concern in maintaining physical laws. This means that while the two systems are different from each other, the difference between the two must not be physical in nature: the difference between the two systems being consciousness. As consciousness is not physical in nature, it is not entirely bound to physical elements and, so, freed from having to be deterministic. This establishes the existence of our Free Will because our decisions are affected by non-deterministic factors through our transcendental consciousness." — Yun Jae Jung

This is a thought-experiment that presupposes an actual empirical event. If the empirical event does not happen, the theory does not hold.

Therefore to show this as a proof-strength theory, you must go out and find the empirical scenario you present.

-------------------

This proof has no a priori component. You can't say that "this is necessarily true", as your proof depends on a physical scenario, that can be imagined, but can be denied as well, despite the fact that anyone with sound mind can imagine it.

To give you a scenario that may shed more light on what I'm saying: In the 1001 Arabian Nights, some tales talk about flying carpets. Anyone can imagine a flying carpet. But is that proof enough that there are flying carpets? No, it is not a proof. So imagining a world which you present is nice and neat, but it is not guaranteed that it does or can exist, much less is it guaranteed that it must exist. The onus is on you to find such a world, in physical space, as presented in the scenario, if you want general acceptance of your theory.

But it seems to me that he forgets that scientific propositions, such as those concerning gravity, do depend upon a previous premise: The uniformity of nature (“The future will resemble the past”). — Amalac

You seem to forget that Munchausenism decries the possibility of proof, and that science never claims a positive proof. Nothing is proven that science claims, and science never claims that it has proven something.

Once you remember the rememberables, it all becomes remarkably clear: Munchausenism only applies to proofs, and science is not about proof.

I want to ask the illustrious members of this forum about other perfect syllogism — javi2541997

I'm illustrious enough so I will answer you.

Some Swedes are not Protestants.
All parishioners are Protestants.
Therefore some Swedes are not Parishioners.

This is the Holy Grail of all luminary syllogisms. This is perfect. Even Plato himself would include it as one of the Forms.

--------------

To be honest, there is no such thing as a perfect syllogism. It is like asking what the perfect two numbers are that you can add together to form a sum.

The problem of theodicy exists only because people try to explain God on human terms.
— baker

What other terms are there? I would love to open up the discussion of God, and I am getting push back. — Athena

I also get ignored. I say, "there is no discernible evidence of any of god's qualities or attributes. We know nothing about god. All we know is that it is possible for it to exist, but not necessary. So... what basis do those have who claim god is this or god is that. It exists but is not real or is real but it is super-existing. Transcends this and transcends that. These are all fantasies, based on an assumption that god must be this way or that way. Well, god does not give us any indication which way god is, so, again, WHY ARE SOME OF US SO PRESUMPTIOUS AS TO CLAIM KNOWLEDGE OF THE QUALITY OF GOD?

This is the third time I ask this question (paraphrased) and I get ignored deeply, soundly, and unanimously, by those who have made actual claims about god.

I guess the silence I encounter to my question is an answer in a way. A very telling answer.

His ideas seem interesting enough to hear about them. I also like the little young girl (of age of majority) in the picture. Can we somehow involve her also in the discussion?

I am a hedonist, inasmuch as I like pleasure and dislike pain. Anyone who is otherwise, must derive pleasure from pain, or derive pain from pleasure. That's possible, I am not trying to be funny.

The methods he suggests or proposes or predicts are questionable. But if they were not questionable, his speech would be not interesting.

I have three areas to suggest exposure of thought:

1. Much like pain killers are reactive to pain, we must experience mental anguish before the "mental anguish killer" can be administered.

B. Also, there is such a thing as getting used to substances; the human body is a superb adjuster, and attenuator if necessary, both for pain and for pleasure.

iii. Also, human perception requires change. That's a biggie.

arguably, you'd need to be quite bad at it - you need to prioritize boiling everything down to catchy maxims — Bartricks

This is not what you wrote?

The opening post was way above my pay-grade. I can't understand a single notion described in it, even if I read it.

Total freedom is absolute chaos.

Freedom is the state of being unrestricted.

You can be more restricted than others, or less restricted. But everyone is restricted. The material world is restricted.

You can only enjoy complete freedom if you remove all restrictions. But restrictions play a part in keeping things cohesive. Remove all restrictions, and the system disintegrates.

Some say their god is freedom itself. Complete freedom of will, and omnipotence. Dangerous combination.

This is why it gives others a headache to define freedom. If it leads to chaos and destruction... then it is bad, and Freedom is so sacrosanct in their minds, that they are incapable of comprehending or imagining or accepting that freedom in its purest form is bad.

So, 'professional' should surely be understood to mean 'professional academic' not just anyone who has managed to earn money from philosophizing. — Bartricks

Philosophy is a subject matter for debate. Your "bad" may be the "good". You can't trust your own judgment and declare categorically that what you deem good is indeed good and what you deem bad is indeed bad. Your judgment is by force subjective, and as such, it is prone to error.

Your argument of catchy maxims getting generated only by populist mass philosophers is refuted by
"You can't step in the same river twice", "The only thing I know is that I know nothing", "cogito ergo sum", "eppur si mouve", "Workers of the world unite: you have nothing to lose but your chains", "Meet the new boss: same as the old boss", "Philosophy... is a talk on some cereal box. Religion: is a light in the fog. Philosophy... is a walk on some slippery rocks, religion... is a smile on a dog."

I calls them as I sees them. If "professional" means earning money, then "professional philosopher" means philosopher who earns money, be he or she good or bad. "Academic philosopher" is most likely also professional, but not all professional philosophers are academic philosophers.

And I have seen my share of bad academic philosophers. (Bad as judged by me.)

Anyone can call themselves a philosopher. Anyone can call themselves a scientist. But to be a professional philosopher requires having an academic post, which in turn requires having a PhD and a track record of producing peer reviewed publications. — Bartricks

You are misinformed. The designation "professional" means they earn money with it. It is their profession, or occupation, and they earn money with it.

Having a Ph.D. or an academic status or job is NOT the only way to make money with philosophy. You can be a celebrity, advocating a philosophical view, and be on TV, or other media, and demand and obtain money for your contribution.

To wit, Socrates was NOT a professional philosopher, although those were teeming in his time in Athens.

Everyone has an opinion on god, but that's where the buck stops. Nobody has any evidence or supporting arguments to back up their claimed opinions.

reality itself doesn't exist — Wayfarer

Wonderful. Except how can you gain support for it?

What Tillich is seeking to lead us to is an understanding of the 'God above God'. We have already seen earlier that the Ground of Being (God) must be separate from the finite realm (which is a mixture of being and non-being) and that God cannot be a being. God must be beyond the finite realm.

Looks likeTillich has started from an assumption which is hypothetical, and furthermore, unneeded. He then extrapolates from his own fantasy. Then it grows and grows, all his fantasies piled up on other of his fantasies, until it fills a book which then he publishes and big grown-ups clap their hands in joy when they read it. These adults forget the fundamental: All Tillich expounds is a finely worked out series of linked fantasies, all speculative, all ungrounded, all totally void of any evidence, therefore it should be treated as void of merit, not as a great mental work of a philosophical genius.

I'm not sure arguments matter all that much on either side of the God/atheism divide. — Tom Storm

Arguments don't matter much to all those who are committed to one side or the other, but for proselytizing reasons they do matter. Atheists proselytize as strongly as theists of any religion. This is so because we are tribal, and our tribal identity is strongest on the level of belief of the big questions of life. "If god is with us, who can be against us?" The atheist question is not as much right on the target: "Since god does not exist, it can't be on anyone's side." It just does not have the same ring to it.

But what atheism does, and where religions fail big time, is that atheism gives strength to the SELF. The atheist does not rely on victory, or success, on the help of some supernatural agency; of a strong big brother who kicks the opposing gang's ass. If a licking is achieved, then all the glory can be owned by the self, and in case of defeat, the failure is the responsibility of the self. It is HUGELY gratifying and liberating. "It is I who has done this, and I alone. No, no, I ain't no dingleberry on some deity's hairy anus."

You don’t know what you’re talking about, unfortunately. I have no interest in the simplistic formulations of Darwinists. — Xtrix

Very good argument! Totally irrefutable, and iron-hard! Because you gave an opinion of your own state of mind. You gave no reason why we should or would believe you... you gave your private opinion.

You are the laughing stock of this forum board, and the new members are getting a good grounding of your inability to focus, argue, and think reasonably.

I personally don't think the idea of a God as described by theism makes enough coherent sense to be thought of as more than a human construct. — Tom Storm

This, actually, can be due to the fact also, that theists are a somewhat incapable bunch. They can't create a supernatural image that fits in the natural world. This may not be god's ineptitude... it screams of the theist's pitiful inability to create a believable god.

Because, I believe that we must differentiate the god of possible existence, and the god of religious descriptions. The god of possible existence shows nothing of itself to us, so to speak of its actual qualities and abilities is futile, it is pure guess work. The god described by religions has clearly impossible qualities, and its own qualities and abilities are mutually exclusive.

My local parish priest says the same thing - God does not exist, that lowly status belongs only to things of the world. God as Tillich's the 'ground of being' fades from my mind the more I consider it. — Tom Storm

Things either exist, or they don't. There is no in-between, or existence-outside-of-existence. This is the precise sort of incredibly stupid doctrine that religious people believe (if they do) which happens only because they are able to reject the application of their own brains.

I refuse to believe the unbelievable-- and that right away cancels the valid belief base of any religion.

I think it’s often both. Atheists think that there is no good reasons to think god exists but many also recognise how awful it would be if god actually did exist, especially if various horrifying content of the bible were true as well. — DingoJones

Much of that is true in my case, if I really want to be honest about it. But my atheism comes mainly by finding the doctrines of the Roman Catholic church pukey. And I resented my own father, big time. He was a huge asshole. And he quoted me the Bible to convince me of things, and they were ridiculously transparently wrong. Or else if not wrong, then irrelevant and pukey.

So... much of my atheism comes form a turn-off from a doctrine that makes me throw up.

Atheism is only an appendix to my rejecting the Roman Catholic beliefs.

But I hate now the Islam, Hinduism, and Judaism as strongly as I hate all the stupid little Christian religions, and the big ones, too.

I am an atheist MAINLY because those who argue against atheism subscribe to some form of a religion or another, and by association I defend what they try to prove wrong.

One more thought, our notions of beauty are related to our ability to recognize patterns, things that are symmetric and in harmony are more appealing. — Athena

What is harmony in visual arts? It can't be defined without using it in the definition. Two colours are in harmony when they don't clash ... harmony is the opposite to clashing. I think it is not possible to say what is harmonious in a painting, sculpture or film, without using the word "harmonious" or its synonyms or its denied antonyms.

Those debates were the height of intellectual achievement, until the backlash opposing Aristotle's rationalism. That is when empiricism emerged beginning the science of modernity.
— Athena

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix

Xtrix, think of it as the natural evolution of philosophy. The more viable thoughts survive, the limited, easy-to-defeat arguments die off.

Well, true, but it's not limited to that. In my view, very few understand philosophical rationalism in our culture because empiricism is so deeply embedded. — Wayfarer

I agree. Except I highly resent the fact that spiritual thinking has hijacked the word "rationalism". In my opinion empiricism is a better ground to employ rationality, than spirituality is.

For instance, following this nomenclature, there can be no "empirical rationalist", we must say "rational empiricist."

This hijacking is like a philosophical trend or school would be called "gut". ("Good" in English.) Das ist eine gute Filosophie," would mean not that an argument stands to reason, but that it belongs to the thoughts advocated by the Good Philosophy school.

Brr.

Sounds like the typical narrative of a Richard Dawkins. — Xtrix

That may very well be because RD was right.