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:

27June24

(addendum to )

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:

Fraudster-Ra(p)ist-Insurrectionist-Convicted Felon-1 "outperformed" POTUS tonight. :sad:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/912686

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).

Yes, they are not identical phenomena.

:100: :up:

: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.

Well "dying" =/= death (i.e. being dead), so ...

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".

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.

Okay, you can't answer. Never mind.

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?

Oh, then you mean ... "human consciousness"?

:100:

from p.28 of this thread ...

Resuscitation is not resurrection. "NDE" presupposes resurrection and yet none of the claimants, in fact, have been resurrected. — 180 Proof

... the emergence of the next new state of consciousness, which is what I take it AI is supposed to be. — Pantagruel

Why do you assume "AI" will ever be "conscious" or that it needs to be in order to function at or above human-level cognition?

26June24

From a purely rational standpoint,
are there sound, logical reasons to commit suicide? — Vera Mont

I don't think so.

After all, from a rational standpoint, suicide is a disproportionately (ir-ratio ... absurd) permanent solution to a temporary problem. :smirk:

Are there frivolous and silly ones that nevertheless compel people to do it? If so, why do they?

Again, I don't think so. A "why" might be divined by their survivors but does not "compel" suicides themselves. Maybe it's the subjective loss of "why" that compels them.

Are there reasons that seem to make sense from one POV, but not from another?

Insofar as such "reasons" are third-person, ex post facto guesses, I think so.

Should other people intervene?

No ...

What is your opinion?

... others usually can't help it (out of love), I suspect, whenever they do "intervene".

Everything--even value, thus, ethics--is "hiding" in the metaphysical. But where is the latter "hiding"? — ENOAH

Maybe within grammar (Nietzsche).

[W]hat is meant by Religion ...? — I like sushi

By "religion" I mean 'official cultus' (i.e. collective ritual telling of ghost stories) that denies – symbolically escapes from – mortality.

From 2021 ...

Fuck Assange. He helped the Russians interfere in the 2016 US elections. Another FSB/GRU tool. Thanks for Trump, Jules! Go. Rot. — 180 Proof

:mask:

Israel fights a greater evil. — BitconnectCarlos

Bullshit. Since 1948, Israeli occupier-oppressor terrorism has killed & dispossessed more Palestinian noncombatants than Palestinian occupied-oppressed terrorism has killed & dispossessed Israeli noncombatants. You shall know "greater evil" by its fruits. :death:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli%E2%80%93Palestinian_conflict

For a person to die is to cease being a person for whom anything could possibly be "bad". 'Your death' irreversibly decomposes you for you. I think death is the ineluctable, or ultimate, gift that liberates each one of us finally from suffering.

:death: :flower:

If that's it, then you're not philosophizing, as I see it, just misusing (e.g. reifying) logic. I prefer to use reality instead of existence (just as I prefer mind to consciousness / mindbody to subject) because the latter tends to be less dynamic and less contingent than the former.

What do you mean by the term "existence"?

In my opinion, the difference between "absence of belief" and "disbelief" is just ... — Tarskian

I.e. you can't tell the difference between ~b(G) and b(~G)? :pray:

It implies that the position could also be indeterminate.

This is only so for someone who (analogously) cannot differentiate 'nonassent from dissent' or 'remaining silent from spoken denial' or 'indifference from rejection'.

Why would there be a need to create that ambiguous overlap between atheism and agnosticism?

Right, there's no "need" for the muddle confusing you, Tarskian. Consider –

Given that (theistic) agnosticism denotes 'the truth-value of theism (claim that at least one providential/creator deity** exists) is unknown (or unknowable)':

(A) if theism is antirealist-noncognitive (i.e. belief in a deity** that does not entail truth-claims), then (theistic) agnosticism is incoherent ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether noncognitive theism is true or false'. :roll:

(B) however, if theism is realist-cognitive°° (i.e. belief in a deity** that entails truth-claims), and using the natural world to search for truth-makers, I/we can show that theism is not true °° and therefore, (theistic) agnosticism is unwarranted ...

... in other words, to say 'I do not know whether cognitive theism is true or false.' :yawn:

In terms of logic, we have: yes, no, maybe. — Tarskian

More precisely +1, 0, -1 (true, unknown, not true).

:ok: If you say so ...

:lol:

Atheism is defined as a positive claim. — Tarskian

Yes, it can be but that formulation is not popular – though it's formerly my preferred position (while quite reasonable, it's too narrow in scope):

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/901774

We still can't demonstrate that there are any gods. We can demonstrate that math works. — Tom Storm

:smirk:

Dunning-Kruger is in full effect.

:up: :up:

Observations of your poor reasoning and discursive failures are not "personal attacks". Grow up, kid.

You ignore context and equivocate "exist", "faith", "proof" .... no wonder you're talking nonsense.

No one has asked for a "mathematical proof" – only you have offered one that amounts to nothing more than a "higher-order modal" tautology.

Accepting a truth without evidence ... — Tarskian

... is a stipulation, or working assumption.

:up: :up:

Yes, so what's the difference? — Tarskian

:roll:

Proof only exists in mathematics ...

So, confirming you do not even know what you are talking about, Gödel only proves a mathematical expression and not, as you've claimed, "that god exists".

Supported by the US, the fucking State of Israel repeatedly commits war crimes / crimes against humanity every day with impunity as the military application of it's official "Greater Israel" colonizer-settler ethnic cleasing, apartheid, terrorism policy against the Palestinian populations in the Occupied Territories, West Bank & Gaza ... nonstop since 1967. My/the world's "specific complaint" is that Israel needs to stop this Zionist scheiße NOW. :brow:

So long as h. sapiens are mortal and scarcity-anxious, I agree our species will remain congentially religious.

???

Implicit in Nazism is racial hierarchy. — BitconnectCarlos

Implicit in Zionism is an ethnic-religious hierarchy.

Caveat: History shows that sooner or later every ethno-state that systemically oppresses – murderously dispossess – out-groups, especially via deliberate and explicit policies of sabotaging "peace", forfeits its 'right to exist'.

:up: Piggy-backing on your suggestion, Philo, here's one of my old posts listing dozens of "god proofs" ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/653775

@CallMeDirac

24June24

A reminder on the 2nd anniversary of SCOTUS overturning Roe v Wade ...

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/895573 :fire: :mask:

:cool: Dark Brandon's swing state BLOWOUT is coming in Roevember. "Be there, will be wild!"

Zionism is Jewish self-determination. Israel is the manifestation of that idea. — BitconnectCarlos

Nazism is German (Aryan) self-determination. The Third Reich is the manifestation of that idea.

Numbers are not "real". They are abstractions. Their use ultimately requires faith in Peano's axioms. So, you can't do math without faith. — Tarskian

:roll:

By "faith" I mean worship of supernatural mysteries e.g. "a god" (re: OP), not mere (un/warranted) trust in a usage or practice. Context matters.

Gödel has proved the existence [of] a Godlike entity from higher-order modal logic.

"Godlike" (e.g. Spinoza's metaphysical Deus, sive natura) is not equivalent to any supernatural god (e.g. "God of Abraham") so this "proof" is theologically irrelevant. More specifically, his argument consists of some undecidable (i.e. disputable) formal axioms and, even if valid, it is not sound; therefore, nothing nonformal, or concrete, is "proven". Same failing as Anselm's ontological arguments – "Gödel's proof" is, at best, a "higher-order modal" tautology. Again, sir, context matters.

proving the existence of something is much easier than proving the impossibility that it would exist

Besides this equivocation (re: existence is not a predicate, etc) ... you find it more difficult "proving the impossibility" that "something" which (e.g.) both is itself and is not itself simultaneously "exists" – or, more simply, that (e.g.) "Godzilla exists" – than "proving a god" (not merely a tautologous "godlike entity") "exists"? :eyes:

Can anyone prove a god, — CallMeDirac

Whatever is real does not require faith and only a god can "prove a god".

FWIW, I'm a ... pandeist. Thus, my "god" (pandeus) is the encompassing absence concealed by "all gods".