• To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    I wonder to what extent such a non-dualistic viewpoint offers a solution to the split between materialism and idealism, as well as between atheism and theism. [ ... ] I am focusing on the idea of non-duality and asking do you see the idea as helpful or not in your philosophical understanding, especially in relation to the concept of God? — Jack Cummins
    "Non-duality", like monism, I don't find as "helpful" (i.e. incisive) as double-aspect theory¹ (e.g. Spinoza's mind-body parallelism of Substance/God) because I assume "the split" is epistemic – different, complementary ways of describing the same entity – but not ontological.

    I also think "materialism and idealism" or "atheism and theism" are logical negations of one another and yet each is consistent with – dependent on – any of the monist, dualist, pluralist or non-dual ontologies. IMO, "a non-dualistic viewpoint" doesn't "solve" these logical negations (i.e. "the split"), only denies-ignores them.

    Do you believe in the existence of 'God?
    No. I'm a pandeist²

    Do you support a philosophy of idealism?
    No. I'm a naturalist³



    https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-aspect_theory [1]

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [2]

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/871001 [3]a

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/800071 [3]b
  • Is atheism illogical?
    I say, the logical concept of god is what is logically possible to each and any given individual person, based on that individual's experiences. — Pantagruel
    I've no quarrel with that. Of course folks are entitled to their own idiosyncratic, placebo-fetish (i.e. cosmic lollipop) of choice. My quarrel is, however, with theistic deities of religion: they are demonstrable fictions, and therefore, it's not "illogical" to reject them as facts (i.e. real, intentional agents).

    ... the possible existence of "god" ... at the logical-conceptual level ...
    And this depends on which "concept of god" is at issue, doesn't it? In sum, clarify your "god-concept" (my preferred conception is
    ↪180 Proof
    ).
  • To What Extent is the Idea of 'Non-duality' Useful in Bridging Between Theism and Atheism?
    idealism and belief in God. I wonder are the two connected as philosophical ideas? — Jack Cummins
    No. No. And yes I think they are "connected".

    (A proper response to come later.)
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪jorndoe
    :sweat: :cry:
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    He's assumed to exist. To be the ultimate cause behind natural events — BitconnectCarlos
    Yes, that's magical thinking (e.g. "The Great OZ" behing the curtain), or the cross-cultural god-of-the-gaps (i.e. appeal to ignorance) fallacy. More than "assumed", such a "God" is worshipped (ritually mass-deluding). Bronze & Iron Age religious traditions consecrated their naturalistic and moral ignorance by magically denying it and naming that supernatural denial "God". :sparkle: :eyes: :pray:
    .
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    my view the idea of God — JuanZu
    Pardon, but I'm concerned with a social "view of the idea of God" preached in religious traditions and actually worshipped (i.e. idolized) by congregants. It's this totalitarian "view of idea of God" that significantly affects cultures and politics and pacifies collective existential angst (e.g. excuses social scapegoating, martyrdom, holy warfare, missionary imperialism, etc) rather than anyone's speculative "view of the idea of God" (such as yours, JuanZu, or my own
    ↪180 Proof
    ).

    What is the need for God? — Ali Hosein
    Fear of the unknown (ergo 'god-of-the-gaps'), or uncertainty (i.e. angst).

    Is God a legacy of the past that remains to this day?
    It is atavistic like ghosts (or shadows), "a legacy" of every human's infancy: magical thinking.

    Or is it a natural concept that will remain with humans forever?
    "God" is a supernatural fantasy (i.e. fetish-idol ... cosmic lollipop) that many, clearly not all, thoughtful and/or well-educated humans outgrow.

    Is man able to solve the "problem of God"?
    I suppose solving the problem of mortality (or scarcity) will consequently dissolve "the problem of God" (i.e. this may be the meaning of humans expelled from "Eden" in order to keep us from eating from the "Tree of Life" so that we "know death" and "fear God" (re: Genesis 3:22)).
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    ↪bert1
    Scientists and scientifically literate persons do not misuse (misinterpret) physical laws that way – and obviously, bert, you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate if you believe nature's regularities / structures are "inexplicable" (akin to supernatural mysteries ... miracles, woo-of-the-gaps, etc).
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    [physical] laws themselves are taken to be brute and inexplicable, no? — bert1
    No. Physical laws are mathematical (computable) generalizations of precisely observed regularities or structures in nature and they are only descriptive (constraints), not themselves explanatory (theories).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    US elections are for Democrats to lose or win. — Benkei
    :up:
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    Why do we believe that God is something that can be proven? — JuanZu
    I suppose this is reasonably assumed whenever "God" is ascribed (according to tradition, scripture, doctrine, testimony) properties, or predicates, which entail changes to the observable universe: those "God"-unique changes either are evident or they are absent, ergo "God" so described either exists or does not exist, no?
  • The essence of religion
    What an incorrigible bunch of idiots. — Tarskian
    :roll: :sweat:
  • The essence of religion
    Since there is no rational reason for the existence of life, existential nihilism is the rational answer. — Tarskian
    Nonsense. If "existential rationalism", then there can be no "rational answers" for an existential nihilist. :roll:

    There are only spiritual reasons ...
    Such as?

    (Btw, when you say "spiritual reasons", do you mean 'reasons given by spirits'? :eyes: )

    There is no salvation ...
    "Salvation" from what? 
  • The essence of religion
    In its essence, like philosophy, religion is metaphysics first. — ENOAH
    Unlike philosophy being 'metaphysics derived by deductive / dialectical reasoning', religion consists in 'metaphysics expressed through symbolic myths' (e.g. "Platonism of the masses" according to Nietzsche)..

    [P]hilosophical attempts to alleviate human suffering ...
    If by "suffering" you mean folly (i.e. ignorance of one's own ignorance, unexamined living, habits of poor reasoning, magical thinking, reality-denials, etc), then I agree with you.

    None of these approaches are apodictic.
    Why does that matter?

    there is no rational reason for the existence — Tarskian
    Why assume "rational reason" is applicable to "existence" especially since "existence" (a) cannot be nonexistence and (b) "rational reason" presupposes "existence"?

    always leads to existential nihilism — Tarskian
    This phrase doesn't make sense. "Existential nihilism" is chosen and not entailed, otherwise it wouldn't be nihilistic. "Rationalism", as you say, assumes that reality – existence – is logical (i.e. inferential, algorithmic, computable) but that logic must be learned (i.e. signals filtered from noise), that the aptitude for reasoning – orderliness / regularities ("laws") of nature – is intrinsic, or "innate", and competence with reasoning – testable modeling ("sciences") of nature – is an acquired set of skills. "Existential nihilism" is the choice to reject "rationalism" as a way of life (i.e. existential project) as well as rationality, or logic, as an epistemic method/criterion of judgment, and therefore, not the inevitable consequence of "rationalism". Spinozism, for instance, does not entail "existential nihilism".
  • Suicide
    ↪creativesoul
    No doubt, yet the act is not rational (i.e. false hope).
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mr Bee
    Both sets of exams can be independently verified by a third party (audit) if Biden's campaign is serious about getting the maximum effect (no matter how marginal). If not, if the "perception" is so irreparable", then he needs to step aside like Lyndon Johnson did in 1968 – of course, VP Harris might also lose (after a brutally divisive convention floor fight) like VP Humphrey lost to Nixon. :brow:

    ↪Wayfarer
    The disgraced puke (former US Rear Admiral) Dr. Ronny Jackson is a MAGA (morons against great america)-stooge congressman from Texas.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Wayfarer
    Yes, of course, the ballot box will be the final arbiter but if Biden stays in the race he has to address the "senile, enfeebled" issue with evidence his surrogates and down-ballot Dem candidates can use while campaigning to better inform voters. Biden's duty is to drop out and failing that I think he has a duty to the US electorate to provide medical reasons as well as performative displays which corroborate why he doesn't step aside. And the contrast with The obsese, neofascist, criminal Clown's response to a medical & cognitive exams challenge will not be lost on the still persuadeable +5% of voters in "the swing states" which will decide the election in the Electoral College.
  • My understanding of morals
    your moral judgment against me — T Clark
    I have not stated or implied any "moral judgment against" you or anyone in the current discussion. I've only taken issue with your concepts and conception of moral philosophy for being uselessly vague and arbitrary.
  • The essence of religion
    [R]eligious doctrines posing as a philosophy of consciousness ... mysticism as anything other than a pacifier of sorts (albeit somewhat essential in its role on mental stability). The path to woo woo is the way. The destination of woo woo is delusion/madness. — I like sushi
    :up: :up:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪hypericin
    ↪Mikie
    ↪Wayfarer
    I think Biden should have a complete physical and cognitive exams which witll then be released in document form (minimally redacted only for national security) and summarized by his physicians in a public press conference asap. He should also publicly dare The obese, neofascist, criminal Clown to do exactly the same, and let the chips fall where they may with the voters. :mask:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Ceding life as we know it to the incorrigible morons is bad enough. Ceding it to senile bitch Biden? It's too much. Biden has to go. — hypericin
    :roll: Stop being hysterical. Biden's competent, effective administration is not populated by "senile bitches"; however, The Clown's "Project 2025" will be populated by a fanatically loyal horde of "incorrigible morons" just like him. Neofascist autocracy is far far worse than the neoliberal status quo, and whoever can't see that will no doubt F-A-I-L the national IQ test in Roevember. :mask:
  • Can the existence of God be proved?
    ↪Manuel
    :100: :up:
  • My understanding of morals
    ↪javi2541997
    No. It seems that in the US at least,"the police" – established by laws – only enforce the 'controls of society' which are instituted by laws passed by legistlators and reviewed/applied by courts.

    As for antisocial psychopathy, I'll point you to the Emerson quote I just used in my previous response to fdrake. — T Clark
    I don't see the point you're making with this reference except that Emerson seems to "morally" excuse e.g. antisocial psychopathy ... almost as Heideggerian / Sartrean (romantic) "authenticity".
  • Is atheism illogical?
    So if your definition of God is that God is the highest form of consciousness... — Pantagruel
    Whatever that means, it's not that. Usually atheism is a reasonable rejection of 'any god described by theism' (with predicates entailing empirical facts about the universe which are lacking ...) just like other imaginary entities.
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    ↪Mikie
    Well anyway ... Sleepy Joe In A Coma still beats The neofascist criminal Clown like a dog in Roevember. :victory: :mask:
  • Is atheism illogical?
    ↪night912
    :up:
  • My understanding of morals
    ... my actions will be in accordance with the guidance of my intrinsic nature, my heart if you will. — T Clark
    What makes this "guidance of my intrinsic nature" moral? Suppose you are an antisocial psychopath: is acting "in accordance" with psychopathy also moral?

    [F]ormal moral philosophy [ ... ] It’s a program of social control - coercive rules a society establishes to manage disruptive or inconvenient behavior
    Laws, legistlation & jurisprudence correspond to "social control". I think learning techniques of self-control (from e.g. exercises, stories, exemplars, dilemmas, conflicts, etc) which are independent of – not enforceable by – "social controls" is what primarily concerns moral philosophy.

    ... any philosophy that specifies how other people should behave, is not moral at all, ...
    Does this also mean that to specify "how other people should" reason, "is not" logic?

    Anyway, by "moral" do you mean (something like) 'cultivates flourishing'?

    ... or even really a philosophy.
     I suppose it depends on what you mean by "really a philosophy" in contrast to "really" not "a philosophy".
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    [deleted]
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    28June24

    [deleted]
  • Last Rites for a Dying Civilization
    The cosmos and time are entirely unaware of humanity. As for evolution, it's given us the bum's rush - fast climb to dominance, even faster gallop toward self-immolation. We think we're important and we managed to convince dogs - nobody else. — Vera Mont
    :fire: :monkey:
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    27June24

    (addendum to
    ↪180 Proof
    )

    Yeah, damn Dems fucked up bigly :shade:


    Even so, Sleepy Joe at his worst is still a better candidate and a better POTUS than The Fascist Clown (aka "Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1").. :mask:
  • Donald Trump (All General Trump Conversations Here)
    Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1 "outperformed" POTUS tonight. :sad:

    https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912686
  • US Election 2024 (All general discussion)
    Sleepy Joe. :zip:

    The Clown wins, no need to debate again this fall. He dodged a bullet. Biden campaign over-prepped POTUS to "debate" (pander to the base) rather than to take out The Clown (moving swing state independents toward Dems).
  • Is death bad for the person that dies?
    ↪LuckyR
    Yes, they are not identical phenomena.
  • Simplest - The minimum possible building blocks of a universe
    ↪Wayfarer
    :100: :up:

    ↪Gnomon
    :roll: :snicker:

    fyi Natural sciences are both "reductive" and "holistic" – by fallibilistic abduction, each defeasibly explains various levels (e.g. hierarchies) of 'self-organizing wholes' mereologically. On the other hand, sir, "metaphysics" is a synoptic (not "holistic") interpretation – categorical idealization – of, among other things, the presuppositions necessary for natural sciences and their findings to rationally make sense.
  • Is death bad for the person that dies?
    ↪LuckyR
    Well "dying" =/= death (i.e. being dead), so ...
  • A question for panpsychists (and others too)
    How about the question “how” instead of “why?” — Fire Ologist
    "How" would be a scientific question (i.e. to explain empirically) instead of a philosophical question "why" (i.e. to clarify-justify conceptually). For instance, imo, "panpsychism" – (i.e. that's just the way woo is (aka "woo-of-the-gaps")) – begs a philosophical question about "the cause of consciousness".
  • A question for panpsychists (and others too)
    ↪Dogbert
    Dude, you propose an answer that merely begs the question (i.e. precipitates an infinite regress). Argument from incredulity – lack of imagination – is also fallacious. Talking out of your bunghole, Dude. "That's just the way it is" – brute fact of the matter – suffices.
  • A question for panpsychists (and others too)
    ↪Dogbert
    Okay, you can't answer. Never mind.
  • A question for panpsychists (and others too)
    In fact, I think my miraculous existential fortune should be justified by something other than "it just is that way". — Dogbert
    Why? – and what then would justify that justification?
  • The best analysis is synthesis
    ↪Pantagruel
    Oh, then you mean ... "human consciousness"?
Home » 180 Proof