To me, faith refers to a mental phenomenon, a thought for example, that can be right or wrong — MoK

I was thinking faith was of the will, not the intellect.

Faith is belief in things unseen. It is precisely not knowledge. It is not verified — prothero

That's how saint paul defines it. But what motive have we to have faith? Is the world a simulation? Does it take a natural faith to accept it's not? Can i "prove" my gramma is not really a extra terrestrial imposter as of yesterday? Is modern philosophy too doubtful? Did Descartes make a mistake?

That is quite a different thing to what is usually understood as religious — Wayfarer

You seem to be limiting faith to Western religion. Does Buddhism have a word for faith? Do they reject its content?

What do you mean by "may transcend"? a-rational? Isn't it just another way of saying irrational — Corvus

Try this: imagine you're in the 60's and you are tripping on acid. You have thoughts of a round triangle. When you sober up the idea lingers. Now reason may say such a thing is impossible, but something opened that got you "out of the box". I propose this as chemically induced faith. Now pure faith is doing this such that you aren't on sonething which you have to sober up from. I want to know more about what faith is. As the faith devours the reason, what can reason say about it?

Could faith be irrational and unjustified beliefs? Rational and justified beliefs are knowledge — Corvus

Hold on, we shouldn' jump to conclusions if there is any doubt. There is knowledge. It is always contingent, howevet, and beliefs that may transcend reason perhaps are not irrational but maybe a-rational. Let's consider great phlosophers who defended faith. First therr is Kant, a man who proved the proofs for God wrong. But for the sake if morality he put faith on the highest pedistal. Then there is Kierkegaard who said faith must crucify reason. Finally we have Bergson, who's complaints against reason got his books placed on the Church's forbidden Index. It is easy to say "ye but you are using reaso to refute reason. Isn't that contradictory?" I would respond as saying truth might be beyond reason, so giving up at least some reason to let in all that is faith, might not be a bad idea. Paradoxically, reason needs space in order to breath, and that "space" might just be faith

At HATH 411 we see that Nietzsche details the perfect woman as a higher type of humanity than the perfect man.

Because having lost their way, women have come down from an elevation to be caged by man. (BGE 237A) — DifferentiatingEgg

Although i agree that Semite theology is shit generally, i don't think women are "doubly innocent". Aquinas said that women are metaphysically inferior to men and in that he us wrong because men and women are equal (hence Nietszche is wrong too), however i personally think he was right in saying women generally are morally inferior to men. It's all about free will. How many little terrible things that female do in their hearts and feelings throughout the day. More then men i surmise. It's not about who kills more people (although there is the abortion question), it is about having a feeling conscience.

affects was considered the origin of evil . . . Thus the Aryans understand sacrilege as something masculine; while the Semites understand sin as feminine — Deleuze

My experience is that women are just as fierce and revengfully violent as men. They just do it differently. I don't think they love deeper than men but maybe it is felt deeper. Men can act on thought alone; women need an emotion to accompany a thought in order to do anything

. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women — Nietzsche

No they corrupt themselves. No anatman crap. We're all responsible for our actions

The human brain has its mammal structures, and fish and reptilian strucures too i believe, from evolution. It is also divided into two sides, although they work in combination, and it uses the chemical neurotransmiters serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephren to create time-space experiences. Dopamine is what fun feels like. Natural satisfaction. Serotonin and norepinephrin have spiritual potential in them, i would argue. Literally these chemicals the rest of the brain uses to help us live quality lives. Furthermore, females and males use their brains differently. Even female scientists think differently with different categories than their male counter-parts. This is what i like about Nietszche: he makes women seem so different from men, putting emphasis on their different bodily neural ontologies.

Have you ever subjectively notices that your right eye is worked by the left brain, while the left eye is controlled by the right brain. At least that is how it feels. This is how we can make facial expressions. I don't know if men and women can expressed the same number of face expressions. I read somewhere or other that the human face can make like 7000 different kinds of microexpressions. I might be getting that number wrong, but it was in the thousands. It is often said that women think with their emotions. The right brain or something...

I'm agnostic about nontheistic "divinity — 180 Proof

Ye pull back the curtain and there'll be either a person or a statue. Some prefer to expect a guy, some stone

Great thread. I'm in the middle of reading Beyond Good and Evil for the 4rth time. His several pages on the female race is priceless. Trump is having too much fun to give up power; Nietszche wanted to be a bully, i think, but in the end just gave a kiss, even if to just a horse

Yes Jesus was a decadent for Nietszche, extremely kind and consistently caring but ultimately a compromized Jew. Nietzsche admired strength above all else, much like Trump. Nietzsche's was free falling down the same hole Hegel set for himself and him, the idea that in a sense everything is itself and it's opposite. Everything becomes a game of statistics, and there is no ground of being because everything is relative. THE hardest thing to grasp in philosophy may be that everything is relative and that this is not refuted by saying " well is it relative that everything is relative". But some things are more true than others. Loving your neighbor is better than hating him, although hate has it's place at times. Descartes's dream of finding the ground that sits forever unmoved was a false dream

Nietzsche died as God and will rise as Christ. The summation of life is the return of matter to spiritual axis it was thrown from

Being is prior to predication in thought. In the flesh they are one. Noumena IS phenomenon seen in truth. "And this will be a sign to you, you will find a child in a manger". The child was not a sign, pointing to something else. This "sign" pointed to itself at the moment they knew the child as God-flesh. And the Indian snake is phenomena only so long as it's not seen as a rope. The world is misunderstood by the mind. To go deeper is to find pure being, what matter as extention truly is. What the brain and nervous system. Man is psycho-organic, spiritual enfleshed. Spiritual means "being"

Phenomena is the false or deficint way we see the world. Everything is a sign pointing to noumena. Phenomena is maya, and what noumena is, in substance, is impossible to know

"time is a dynamic flow in which past, present, and future are intertwined — Gnomon

Such idea does as well deserve a place in the thought process, but ultimately i think the concept of time itself must be abandoned. Too many paradoxes arise and it is not pointing to a particular entity anyway, contra Newton. A statue of Zeus would be called a process for the reason that change is constantly happening to it. It's never the same. To do away with change would be impossible, unless perhaps you are in a black hole.. But ye, time itself is superulous. What did we think it was in the first place? Change itself? A Plotanic Form of Change? Sounds like a contradiction

"Whenever we think of some entity, we are asking, What is it fit for here? In a sense, every entity pervades the whole world". (Process and Reality)

Notice he can still speak of entities. The entity is a process *because* every one of them is in everything. Kinda like Leibniz's monads?

I would agree with your disagreement with Newton and Aristotle in fsvor of Kant and Whitehead, although Descartes was right to say matter was extension. Matter is spirit; in fact, matter is Love. God is the mind of it all. Do you know Teilhard?

God understand His essence? — MoK

John the Scott said no, Aquinas said "of course". The former was condemned

In this argument, P refers to the premise, D to the definition, C to the conclusion, and FC to the final conclusion. And here is the argument:

P1) The act of creation is caused by an agent so-called God
D1) This act is defined as an act of creation of something from nothing
C1) Therefore, there is a state of affairs where there is nothing but God (from P1 and D1)
P2) God is in the undecided state about the creation where there is nothing but God
P3) There cannot be any change in this state of affairs unless God decides to create
C2) Therefore, a change from an undecided state to a decided state in God is required (from P2 and P3)
FC) Therefore, God changes

Here, I am not interested in discussing whether P1 is true or not. I assume that P1 is true and see what it leads — MoK

If God without necessity created the world then his knowledge of his act would be inside him and since everything inside his is himself, then his creating the world changed he himself QED

I feel like this concept that God is "out there" and can never be pointed to is a practice in speculation of logic itself but without any real content that would render its "demonstrations" to be real proofs

Perhaps right angles are not a thing in the world — Banno

How? Look at a pool and mentally see a right angle in the water. It's right there

Thoughts

The answer to the question "if there is a God", "why there is a God", and "how there is a God" is the same for all considering the simplicity of God. But simplicity would just mean sameness, uniformity, lack of what we humans call design. So a non-designed single-thing designs designs. I suppose. This is such an exercise in control however, making the world managerable. I prefer Sartre-eques, gritty sink, existential mental affections for the most part. The day in a life, not a day in the life. No support

If there is anything in the universe that everything else is composed by, I think we would all like to know about it, especially physicists — NotAristotle

That's my point. Saying composition needs a composer assumes the conclusion in the premise. So how was a movement of logic even made to demonstrate God?

Also, how familiar are you with Kant's second Antimony?

Ok say matter has the potential to be divided endlessly. Why must this prove that matter ends in a supernatural mind? Why is this the only explanation? Can calculus offer some light? Can modern physics?

Trinity doctrine is unsound and invalid. — Corvus

I've been reading Aquinas's treatise on the Trinity today and it resonates with how my mind interacts with itself. It seems the left hemisphere is Father, right is Son, and center "eye" is that which is spirated (love). I easily can be confused about who i am *by* this of course, or *inspite* of this.

Can you prove time exists? Can we perceive time as an entity? — Corvus

Maybe not in terms of philosophy. But what about physics? On the other hand, physics would have to start with the senses and the senses probbly can't touch time, although I would have to check with Einstein on that one. Maybe you have to go by way of philosophy. Or is it all the same?

1. A composite gets its composition from its parts.
2. If all the parts of a composite are themselves composite, then all the parts get their composition from their respective parts.
3. If all of the parts get their composition from their respective parts, then every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another (or others) that it gets its composition from.
4. If every member, or part, is lacking in terms of its composition and requires another for its composition, then no member has composition.
5. If none of the parts have composition, then none of the parts can give composition to another.
6. If none of the parts can give composition to another, then no parts can be parts of a greater composition.
7. Therefore, if all parts are composite, and a composition depends only on its parts, then there can be no composition.

A composition dependence cannot go to infinity of its own power. — NotAristotle

I object that you are turning a mathematical question into ontology here

Isn't Geometry an object of thought rather than a way of thought — Corvus

This is a fascinating comment. Hegel is his first ["Greater"] Logic emphasizes often that logic as pure act and logic as object are one and the same for speculative philosophy

Theothanatology

Any thoughts on how this relates to Descartes's "Rules"? And is all this related to the method of Spinoza's "Ethics"?

we see a tree, we experience visual sensations. — hypericin

I think it's more true that we experience an Other than that in that moment we experience subjective sensation, Husserl be damned. Empiricism trades clarity for cozy tingles not useful for knowledge, Locke be damned

Maybe the senses don't exist, as you understand them. Can you point to them? An ear is matter. So is a nose. Sight is miraculous in that you can *SEE* something you aren't touching. The eyes are shamans. The senses are labels

The parts which make up the whole actualize the potential for the whole to exist — Bob Ross

So in answer to Zeno Aristotle says the whole is prior to the parts. So is the whole prior to the parts or the parts prior to the whole? That's really a silly question. There this part, that, and together, the whole. What else is there to say?

the slide cannot be composed of an infinite per se series of parts and, thusly, God must exist — Bob Ross

But it does as Zeno shows.

gravity is the displacement of space-time fabric which is relative to a relationship between the two objects effected — Bob Ross

The question is of the first movement in time. How did it start? Motion, caused by gravity, allows time to flow. Without the caused motion there is no time. Without time there is no creator

you circle back to the original point I already — Bob Ross

Then i address it

already demonstrated that gravity doesn't work like — Bob Ross

Where?

You can't form some generic argument about potential and actuality and say this is beyond science. This is about specific scientific principles thst science has been working on since Newton. These arguments you present are very tangled and many many physicists would disagree with them

The 'thing' which would be actualizing the potential for the gears to move would, like I pointed out, be external to the series — Bob Ross

No. Many scientists would disagree with you. The 5 ways are just the thing physicists like to think about: how to move the series through the laws of nature alone.

1. Change is the actualization of a potential.
2. A gear cannot change itself.
3. Rotation is a form of change.
4. A gear cannot rotate itself.
5. An infinite series of gears that are interlinked would never, in itself, produce any rotation amongst the gears.
6. Therefore, if an infinite series of gears that are interlinked are such that they are each rotating, then something outside of that series is the cause of that rotation — Bob Ross

Maybe matter is not something a partless being can know. Aquinas's arguments are weak on that. Deism sounds possible if we take any probability count with regard to partless God. There can be pure potential with no actualization perhaps that can actualize because of how the physics works. The gears coukd have eternally moved by gravity if they are on a slant

God still has a will, intellect, etc. without having parts — Bob Ross

Another undefended assertion.

infinite regress of contingent beings is actually impossible — Bob Ross

Imagine the infinite water slide again

God is not his thoughts and God doesn't move himself — Bob Ross

I agree that makes sense but it's inconsistent with Thomism. How can God be perfectly simple yet have thoughts that are not him?

thoughts does not imply movement: movement is physical, thoughts are mental — Bob Ross

Everything is physical. Thomism fails because it uses bad physics. Everything has dialectic and paradox. Is God alive?

Everything is denied God by Thomism such that nothing real is left. God is not even noumena

. universal telology, absolute non-vacuum, absolute non-motion, — 180 Proof

Exactly