-
Epistemology of UFOs
Yes, that's why I wroteI think the UFO/alien folks are looking for meaning beyond the mundane. — schopenhauer1
"UFOs" = angels & ghosts — 180 Proof -
Buddhism and Ethics: How Useful is the Idea of the 'Middle Way' for Thinking About Ethics?
:chin: Why do you believe this?As far as the relationship between ethics and religion (including esotericism) the two evolved together. — Jack Cummins
For instance, the ancient Hebrews would not have survived as a "people" – viable social group – "wandering for 40 years in the wilderness" had they not (usually) observed moral prohibitions against murder, lying, theft & adultery BEFORE they had received "commandments" (and subsequent Mosaic Laws).
As a reasonable generalization, h. sapiens must have survived for at least a hundred millennia or so as a eusocial – instinctually moral – species BEFORE they had invented "religion", so why do you say "the two evolved together"? Clearly, religions much later had coopted ethical norms, no? -
A Deist Creation MythPandeism (as I've explicitly pointed out) means that 'the deity' BECAME the universe and therefore 'the deity' does not exist while the universe exists. "Everything is holy" is either animism or pantheism, not pandeism. Your supernatural-bias blinds you to what I've actually written – unless you haven't even read or comprehended my posts (& links).
-
Epistemology of UFOsI agree with you both but iff the "Roswell, NM '47 crash & Area 51" 1950s era flying saucer (+ alien abductions) myth happens to be true. IMHO, the "UFO scare" was a mass psy-op product of 'Cold War nuclear war anxiety and espionage paranoia' to distract the public from – then officially cover for – various covert military and surveillance test aircraft (like today's drones, etc) or LEO sats. Contra the prevailing anthropo/geo-centricity, I'm skeptical that Earth is exo-scientifically worthy of any interstellar traveling ETIs survellance / contact efforts (e.g. "UFOs"):
(2022) Convergence of our species with aliens ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774893
(2022) UFOs ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/814458 -
A Deist Creation Myth
"Before the beginning" = north of the north pole :roll:Before the beginning, there wasGod. — Brendan Golledge
Again, it makes more sense – cogently, parsimoniously, naturalistically – to substitute existence (or laws of nature (à la Laozi or Epicurus, Spinoza or Einstein)) for "God".Nothing was beforeGod, and neither doesGoddepend on anything else.
Fwiw, my own No Creator Myth, etc ...
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/569517 (further links included)
How is it that "creator" is not merely an unwarranted anthropomorphization / personification of chance? Or that cosmos is not one of countless phase transitions of chaos? :chin:
To infer 'intentional agency' from current cosmology is, at best, unsound (i.e. :sparkle: -of-the-gaps). -
Buddhism and Ethics: How Useful is the Idea of the 'Middle Way' for Thinking About Ethics?:up:
NB: Nietzsche's suggestion that belief in life after death, being an immaterialist or being religious (e.g. a Christian) is nihilism – this life, this world, Nature-devaluing – makes sense to me.
I don't see what your response has to do with the substance of my previous post. In reference to the thread title (topic). As a moral naturalist¹ I find "esotericism" like Buddha's "Middle Way" – though it can be somewhat interesting – useless "for thinking about ethics".
(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/857773 [1] -
Can the existence of God be proved?You made the claim so you have the burden of proof. Believe whatever you fancy, sir – apparently, you don't understand the argument from poor design. or why your "belief" is fallacious as I've pointed out .
-
Can the existence of God be proved?
Compositional fallacy —> (believer's) confirmation bias. Also: your "creator deity / intelligent design" belief, sir, is refuted by the argument from poor design.My beliefs are based on observation of the natural world which as I’ve stated before shows signs of intelligence, design whatever you wanna call it. This to me constitutes evidence of God. — kindred
How do you/we know this?Just not possible. -
A Deist Creation MythYes, I don't see why 'Spinoza's God' (i.e. natura naturans) could not have produced – evolved-developed within the constraints of its 'physical laws' – superhuman beings (with technoscientific mastery (perhaps several orders of magnitude more advanced than our own today (re: Clarke's Third Law)) which h. sapiens have worshipped – superstitiously misrecognized – as "gods".
-
A Deist Creation Myth
It makes more sense to me – cogently, parsimoniously, naturalistically – to substitute existence (or laws of nature (à la Laozi or Epicurus, Spinoza or Einstein)) for "God".Yet inGod, in the abstract, exists all else that could be. — Brendan Golledge -
Buddhism and Ethics: How Useful is the Idea of the 'Middle Way' for Thinking About Ethics?
Afaik, "perfectionism" & "salvation" are religious ideals, not ethical principles. For avoiding extremism (or dogmatism) in moral judgment, I prefer more naturalistic (adaptive) approaches such as Aristotle's aretaic golden mean, Epicurus' disutilitarianism and/or J. Dewey's pragmatic ethics to the esoteric "middle way" of Buddhist practice.I do appreciate the idea of 'the middle way' in Buddhism as a basic point for balanced approaches to ethics. It looks beyond the idea of 'perfectionism' in morality and ethics as being about real life dilemmas. This goes beyond the idea of ethics and morality as being about salvation on a personal level. — Jack Cummins -
What are you listening to right now?Oldies and Some Goodies
Side One
1956
https://youtu.be/cXXw_5G7Fhk?si=iuFXB1S5KNJDw-DQ
1957
https://youtu.be/no-nuFTHetE?si=BNmAgY6FwUyv7cbq
1958
https://youtu.be/HbsyDHxca7Y?si=02vgpqJFsLvWSo0r
1960
https://youtu.be/6AJGrcx_PIY?si=KH_r3JBUT3NG37By
1961
https://youtu.be/EDtBq6FnlCY?si=wz_4mhaVb-Yhk5As
1962
https://youtu.be/FZy3T0IhQ2o?si=7wH7D87AF5mBi0zc
1962
https://youtu.be/7yVM4LrWTl4?si=1oQBbSYMJpyuGahH
bonus:
1970
https://youtu.be/o6iaSWSB7rE?si=3_J_6j9rcLVjn7vC -
Epistemology of UFOsJust as atheists are less likely than religious people to "believe in" angels & ghosts. As you're well aware, we (confabulatory metacognitive) h. sapiens are quite often (virally) delusional. :pray: :nerd:
-
"Potential" as a cosmological origin
I do not think either term is used in QT. Afaik, "nothing-ness" is a nonsense term only used in naive metaphysics.Is there a distinction in quantum theory between "nothing" and "nothing-ness?" — Count Timothy von Icarus -
"Potential" as a cosmological originI think you are (like most others) confusing nothing with nothing-ness (which is self-contradictory or impossible). I agree F. Wilczek is not talking about nothing-ness when he says "nothing" and neither am I in my previous post .
-
The case against suicide
So be a bum. Many people give up, get off the hamster wheel and drop out of "the struggle" e.g. monastics, hermits, homeless, (RV) nomads, off-the-grid preppers, et al. Ancient traditions of (e.g.) Epicureans & Kynics celebrated this marginal way of life as attaining "ataraxia". For some, dumb animal "happiness" suffices. :strong:[No] reason to really struggle and fight for a place in the world. No reason to really pursue anything. One can just end [one's] life and be done with the pursuit and struggle. — Darkneos
You (all of us) are going to die soon enough anyway so why the rush to end yourself? :eyes:
As pointed out already, suicide is a permanent (non)solution to a temporary (non)problem – thus, irrational (or pathological). That there is no inherent reason to live demonstrates that there is no inherent reason to kill yourself. You were Born. You Learn. You Love-Lose. (You unLearn.) You will Die. No "argument" for or against "life" – or the lack of an "argument" – changes these facts of life, so stop whining and get over yourself, dude. :death: :flower: -
"Potential" as a cosmological originAddendum to
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/953124
This assumes that "beyond the Actual" – possibilism¹ – makes sense whereas beyond the merely "logically possible" – actualism² – is a much more reasonable and parsimonious metaphysical approach.To go beyond the Actual(physical)to inquire into what's logically Possible(meta-physical). — Gnomon
[1] countlessly many merely possible worlds of which the actual world is only one possible world (S. Kripke, D. Lewis)
[2] factually possible ways the actual world could have been (or can be described / modeled) i.e. actual world-versions rather than "possible worlds"
a more (orthodox) academic summary ...
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/possibilism-actualism/
@Ben96 -
The case against suicide
:fire:This is the first and last question that philosophy must answer - 'What's the point?' The answer is "love". If you wonder what love is, I can only tell you that it is what you lack, whenever you ask this question. Suicide makes sense if there is no love, but only self. We are not here to be satisfied, but to become satisfactory. — unenlightened -
The case against suicide
Well I have never found a "good argument" for suicide either. Afaik, empirically, suicide does not solve any unsolvable problems or change anything that cannot be changed (e.g. past events, past actions, persisting consequences) and often only deeply harms the suicide's own family, former lovers and/or close friends.I’ve struggled to find a good argument against suicide ... — Darkneos
If you are struggling, sir, seek professional clinical help ASAP.
:up: -
Dare We Say, ‘Thanks for Nothing’?
:100:The human condition in a square bracket. We have caused most of our own misery - not entirely unknowingly, because there was always at least one 'enemy of the people' who warned us and was overruled for all the wrong reasons. — Vera Mont
:fire:Those who have almost nothing are usually thankful for the little they have.
Those who have almost everything usually think they deserve better.
— unenlightened
The whole point of institutional religion. -
Ontological status of ideas
Yeah "common" for philosophers, iirc, since A. Meinong¹. Simply put: existents are causally relatable to each other and subsistents (which are only instantiable via existents) are logically / grammatically relatable but are not causally related at all.So, chairs exist and numbers subsist? Is that a common understanding? — Art48
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonexistent_objects#Meinong's_jungle [1] -
"Potential" as a cosmological origin
This is a pseudo-question because of its 'something/nothing' (fluctuation/vacuum) false dichotomy. The physical fact is 0.999 of every something (nonzero dimensional X) is nothing (zero dimension).Why is there something instead of nothing? — Benj96
Also, there is no ultimate "why" that doesn't beg the question except There Is No Ultimate "Why" – existence (i.e. fundamental disorder-dynamics-void fluctuations ... 'necessary contingency') is the brute fact.'Nothing' is unstable. — Frank Wilczek, theoretical physicist
:up: :up: -
In defence of the Principle of Sufficient Reason
Fallacy of misplaced concreteness (i.e. mapmaking =/= terrain). At most the PSR is, "like logic", a foundational property of reason.Since the PSR is a first principle of metaphysics, like logic, then it is part of the fabric of reality. — A Christian Philosophy -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalismNB: a cosmos (i.e. an emergent, autopoietic, dissipative fractal-structure) is only one of countless phase transitions of chaos (i.e. void, formlessness, randomness) – like sound in silence or a wave on the ocean or a cloud in the sky or a spot on the sun ... anthropic illusions of "design" :eyes:
-
What is creativity?I define creativity as producing intentional accidents (i.e. disciplined improvisation).
-
In defence of the Principle of Sufficient ReasonSo what is the sufficient reason (why) for the "PSR" (Why) or any so-called "sufficient reason" (why) as such?
-
In science there is progress and answers. In philosophy there is 2500 years of mental masturbationModern science is an artifact of 2,500 years of philosophy.
-
How do you define good?
In contrast to 'instrumental good' or 'aesthetic good', I define ethical good as flourishing (eudaimonia) from the moral conduct (eusocial habits) of non-reciprocally reducing harms (re: suffering).How do you define good? — Matias Isoo
Read (e.g.) Epicurus & Philippa Foot ... -
Philosophy, Politics and Values: Could there be a New Renaissance or has it gone too far?All that you touch
You change.
All that you change
Changes you.
The only lasting truth
Is Change. — Octavia Butler, Parable of the Sower
:up: :up:I do think that there is likely to be a lot of population reduction through many factors, from war and inequalities. Of course, this is not the first time and the ability to cope with change is questionable. — Jack Cummins
My (dark) forecasting ...
(2023)
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/844458
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/841471
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/848035 -
How to account for subjectivity in an objective world?
The former is in part constituted by the former just as higher dimensional spaces / bandwidths are constituted by lower dimensional spaces / bandwidths. Subjectivity (i.e. my view from here) is an emergent property – phenomenal-perspectival aspect – of objectivity (i.e. public view from anywhere).How to account for subjectivity in an objective world? — bizso09 -
Is the real world fair and just?@schopenhauer1 ...
To prevent life =/= to prevent suffering just as to destroy the village =/= to save the village. Your ANist cowardice and hypocrisy are pathetic, schop, but it's not yet too late to redeem yourself à la Mainländer. :smirk: — 180 Proof
... a quick summary of a dark pandeism¹ (e.g. contra 'Spinoza's God') rather than mere bourgeois 'pessimism' (A. Schopenhauer) or ascetic 'nihilism' (Kitarō Nishida, Keiji Nishitani).
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/718054 [1] -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
:roll:↪180 Proof is making a statement of personal belief, not a fact of science. — Gnomon
That so-called "personal belief" is an application of Occam's Razor, or a regulatory principle for abductive reasoning¹ (i.e. philosophy, not "a statement of fact" – like e.g. 'the uniformity of nature').
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abductive_reasoning [1] -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism
Also, by implication, I'm saying that, while "God" and the universe are equally improbable, "God" is completely nonevident such that parsimoniously the universe (as e.g. eternal, cyclical, a vacuum fluctuation, etc) suffices both as a physical explanation and metaphysical presupposition.So you're saying the probability God exists is extremely low? — RogueAI -
Cosmology & evolution: theism vs deism vs accidentalism:clap:
He won't respond to your actual criticisms or arguments because he can't. IME, @Gnomon is as disingenuous as he is an incorrigibly poor thinker.
180 Proof
Start FollowingSend a Message
- Other sites we like
- Social media
- Terms of Service
- Sign In
- Created with PlushForums
- © 2025 The Philosophy Forum