I am going to wait for the proof that time stands still before commenting on this. But even then I think I would need you to explain exactly what you mean by information. — Sir2u

John Wheeler's PAP and double-slit experiments.

Are holograms supposed to be 3D? — Sir2u

I think they are 2D.

Maybe so, but the brain is chemicals and energy, exactly where is the information? If the information is the combination and arrangement(conflation) of these two it does not occupy any space of its own, therefore would be nothing more than a property of the brain. — Sir2u

I agree with 'maybe so'. The information is in the form of electrical energy (QM) and/or EM field theories of consciousness. Accordingly, space itself contains that information.

Though not completely analogous, just think of audio/visual electromagnetic signals from the air waves/space. Then combine that with the phenomenon of double-slits. Space then contains information and energy. Just like light energy being within space.

True to form: you don't know what you are talking about, lil troll, and project your own failings on those who take issue with yours. — 180 Proof

Hiding behind ad hominin only weakens your credibility there. The simple answer is, from the Christian Bible, Jesus was known to be God (and of course man/son of God). And so the syllogism still holds.

Not sure what all the fuss is about. Unless of course you're simply disgruntled over the truth about Christianity, not sure... .

It's the logic that says god is omniscient and yet benevolent; that he loves you and yet will send you to hell; that bread is flesh, wine is blood; that worships a zombie and encourages ritual cannibalism; that rejects abortion but will not help the needy; that ignores pedophilia in its institutions; that three are one; that rejects love if it is between a man and another man... — Banno

That's not logic nor history, it's philosophy ( to put it nicely).

Logically, it says God existed.

Invalid because your first premise is false.
2h — 180 Proof

Really, I don't understand, how so? Or are you just trolling again LOL

In Christianity:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.
4h

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference i — Pfhorrest

In Christianity:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

But what is the relative position of the thinking, feeling subject in aesthetic judgement? — Possibility

It's the appeal to the phenomenology of the aesthetic experience. And in turn, the nature of that feeling itself, becomes metaphysical because it's abstract in its explanation (to someone). Much like an abstract painting.

A metaphysical connection comes from recognising that we are interacting with more than a body, which is not to say that this person is also a mind and a spirit, but that they are a complex metaphysical structure of relations, from which we arbitrarily conceive of body, mind, spirit or person for some presupposed purpose. So a brain disorder changes the nature of relations within that continually changing metaphysical structure, but it’s only when we isolate the concept of ‘mind’ and how we expect it to function that it becomes a challenge to relate in some way to this altered mind as an unexpected new aspect of that complex, indeterminate goal to whom we direct our actions and feelings of love. — Possibility

Of course the concept of Love is all encompassing, but once again, you are denying the impact of Eros and the phenomenology of the aesthetic experience. Romantic Love seems like a long lost cousin (to you). The metaphysical connection is from both the aesthetical experience itself, along with the intellectual and spiritual experience.

The idea that Kant’s noumena transcends the unity of categories, then, does not position phenomena in contrast or oppositional relation to it. — Possibility

We will have to agree to disagree. The aesthetic experience is the phenomenon that relates to Eros. A Kantian aesthetic judgment is a judgment which is based on feeling, and in particular on the feeling of pleasure or displeasure. Noumena is not germane in our context of phenomenology and sense experience. Noumena is independent of same.

Sir2U!

Thanks for your reply! The short answer would be yes and yes. The Hologram is a good analogy because the mind is information and energy. Light is energy in space. Space contains energy.

I read from your previous posts that you were using the computer analogy. Are Qubits like light energy to where its information is conflated with mass and energy (light has no mass but has energy)? And are Qubits essentially flat and two-dimensional like Holograms?

Also, (sorry for all the questions) if information doesn't pass with the extinction of time, and from relativity the speed of light makes time stand still, does light/information itself become timeless and eternal?

I think the Hologram Principle has many implications don't you?

(Key concepts are: light, information, space and energy.)

Does anyone want to provide a fixed definition of space? — Sir2u

I'll give it a go! The answer is a Hologram, otherwise known in physics as the Holographic Principle. The universe is a time matrix consciousness hologram.

For example, what on earth is it that enables such a complex entity as a human to persist in such a diverse environment as the world we find ourselves in, with time and extension, presence and being ? — Punshhh

The Will.

On a broader scale, think about seeds growing, electromagnetic waves (electrical phenomena), procreation, the weather, the nature of time, or anything that naturally occurs from our existence. Cosmologically speaking as it were, this metaphysical will in nature is quite extra-ordinary, no? Or in the alternative, is it ordinary, yet unexplainable? (Or is it explainable and normal?)

How does atheism address the metaphysical will (I wonder :snicker: ) ?

In this way materialism dismisses speculation of such condierations out of hand, while ignoring any attempts to reconcile the big existential questions with our experience of living and handing them over to science which will eventually explain everything for us. — Punshhh

Well of course the one major hurdle for the materialist is how consciousness emerges from a piece of wood.

The dynamic associated with existential angst relates to psychology and cognitive science, in that we are hard-wired to live a consistent life of striving, of wondering, of Being and doing. One can say it's the antithesis of instinct in lower life forms. In philosophy, it's known as the will. Or in the case of Schopenhauer, the metaphysical will in nature. Our will is metaphysical in nature. Otherwise, how do we explain the nature of our Will?

And that is a segue to Kant's intuit about synthetic a priori knowledge and why we have it, as an innate feature of consciousness (apart from pure logic). For example, we naturally think that all events are causational. We default to that sense of truth. That sense of wonder. But once again, what is the nature of wonderment? In consciousness, it's not material nor does it confer any biological advantages. Instinct is all that's needed to take it's place. Instead, wonderment involves, and confers, quality of life for human existence. It's an ancillary feature of consciousness, yet is vital for our quality of life. It involves discoveries in science and all the humanities. Without it... ?

And that leads also, to the Will to survive; live or die. What determines our Will to either check-out or stay alive? Quality of life?

Atheism cannot square any of those metaphysical and/or existential circles, nor can it explain the phenomena associated with consciousness (the will, wonderment, love, self-awareness, etc.) in a material way. I feel bad for atheists, they don't seem to be that intuitive, to say the least... .

Oh, and while your brainstorming, parse my questions if you can:

As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .

Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?

No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?

LOL

Several problems. Start with the fallacy of four terms, just for a start. Sorry, not a valid syllogism. Also, #1 is altogether problematic. In one variation it simply assumes the conclusion. If there's a variation that doesn't, I don't see it. — tim wood

You mean Jesus/God didn't exist, are you sure?

Okay, maybe parse each proposition/premise:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

Let us know!

LOL

where's Jesus?" :)
Jesus is professed to be a prophet, so has had his blinkers lifted apparently, amongst other things. Prophets do appear to attain some wisdom, even esoteric knowledge about reality, but it is not easily amenable to intellectual, or philosophical consideration. This I consider is due to the knowledge attained being of a different kind to that provided by the intellect. — Punshhh

Here's more fun with another basic syllogism/form of modal logic ( All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.)

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .

Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?

No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?

Idiocy does love company! — 180 Proof

Hahaha.... let's see Frank, I believe we have another classic example of a disgruntled atheist who is hiding behind ad hominem.

In his syllogism, he can't even make his own premise(s) sound! It's as if he's trolling or something, not sure.

Jorndoe!

Are you able to answer any of my questions yet?

Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist. — 180 Proof

Mmmmm, let's see...your syllogism must be incoherent then, because it uses the term transcendence? Would like to revise and resubmit yours?

Otherwise, once again, I'm afraid you've left yourself in the untenable position to define transcendence hence:

p2. I have reason to suspect a god necessarily transcends existence. — 180 Proof

How do you know God transcends existence? Is your premise true or false?

Is the quantum level physical, non-physical, or something else? — Harry Hindu

I think that's a relatively easy one Harry. The answer is more non-physical/something else. The atom has no real physical structure. Atoms are made out of invisible energy, not tangible matter. Kind of like light energy.

Light is not [really] matter. Light is just light --- it has its own qualities. Light is made up of "things" called photons, and these photons can possess some of the properties of matter. For example, they are always moving, and when they move, they can exert a (usually very small) force on an object (just like moving matter can).

http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=512#:~:text=Light%20is%20not%20matter.%20Light%20is%20just%20light,on%20an%20object%20%28just%20like%20moving%20matter%20can%29.

Then we'd be talkin'. (y) — jorndoe

jorndoe, in case you missed my questions to you:

Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

I'm sorry to keep putting you on the hot seat...or maybe you answered them, I couldn't find where you did though... ?

p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is impossible to exist.

p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.

c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist. — 180 Proof

180, welcome to the party! Here's what you've suggested:

p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.

p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.

p3. Therefore, I have reason to suspect it is possible for a god to exist.

Did I get that right ?

His heart seems to be in the right place...and he seems intelligent.

I hope he sees his errors. — Frank Apisa

I agree on all accounts.

When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder. — Frank Apisa

LOL, I know. It seems as though he put himself in a precarious and/or somewhat untenable position :snicker: .

What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood

Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether its premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

Sorry for the redundancy, but did you get a chance to mull these over yet:

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

Amen, you do not know wtf you're talking about. No need to reply, because I won't. — tim wood

Like Frank said, this isn't philosophy 101. Do your homework. Thus far, your argument is not sound, nor does it logically follow from any of your premises... .

Tic toc tic toc, LOL

All materially existing things have existential predicates.
God has no existential predicates.
God is not a materially existing thing. — tim wood

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

That's just a cursory read of your syllogism. Consider those questions then revise and resubmit.

Now we're talkin'!!!! Let's see how the atheist can effectively use logic to determine the non-existence of a God !!!

Kant’s metaphysics attempts to describe the relational structure of mental processes through which we are able to understand noumena through phenomena. That’s not a denial or justification of the ‘aesthetical phenomena’, it’s a recognition that it’s not so much the appearance itself, but what we learn about the metaphysical aspects of the noumena through our limited perception, that matters. Aesthetics does not equal appearance, but rather perceives and then conceives of reality as more than it appears. — Possibility

That's not what we're talking about here, sorry. Your interpretation is way off the mark. Noumena is posited by Kant as an object or event that exists independently of human sense and/or perception. The term noumenon is generally used in contrast with, or in relation to, the term phenomenon, which refers to any object of the senses.

We are talking about subjective objects of the senses, and the experience of aesthetics. Not sure where the disconnect or denial or problem seems to be, but the metaphysical component is that which is beyond logic when experiencing an aesthetic object. That object being you.

In my view, Kant is not advocating judgement of the ‘object’, but rather reflection on our own capacity to delight in an aspect of experience from which neither purpose nor value, neither reason nor logic, can be determined. It is a reflective judgement of our capacity to love. Attending to aesthetical phenomena challenges our perception of the world, and proceeding through all four ‘moments’ without resorting to judgement of what is an indeterminate ‘object’ frees us to imagine an experience of reality unconstrained by our limited understanding of it, let alone our perception of it, and to delight in the possibilities of this indeterminacy in full awareness of our capacity (without necessity) to reason, to know and to judge. — Possibility

Exception taken as noted: While you are certainly getting closer to the appropriate interpretation, and there is certainly agreement relative to emotive phenomena of 'delight', Kant makes the distinction between the object viewed and the feelings (metaphysical judgements) that are experienced being something that transcends logic.

By using the ‘aesthetical object’ as a crutch - keeping it in focus as the goal to which we ultimately direct our feelings or actions - we corrupt any judgement of taste from the outset. If the object is predetermined and cannot be perceived as more than its aesthetical phenomenon, then there is no ‘free-play’: imagination remains constrained by understanding. The old adage ‘If you love something, set it free’ couldn’t be more apt. — Possibility

You're using crutch as a means to an end. Your end goal is an intellectual connection. But that's not what we're talking about, So I don't understand how that addresses the aesthetical experience. Perhaps thinking about the phenomenon of romantic love would help... .

It’s a simple enough process to love and delight in a particular appearance of an object without reservation; more complex to continue to love and delight in your partner when they no longer appear to be the slender twenty-two year old anyone in their right mind would agree was beautiful, and more complex still to love and delight in the world as it is. It’s not that we are brains in a jar - it’s that there is more to the ‘object’ of our experience - and our delight - than the particular aesthetical phenomenon, and that we have the intellectual capacity to develop our understanding and imagination through these four moments, and ultimately through life, towards the capacity for ‘pure aesthetical judgement’ of reality - such is the indeterminacy of phenomena. Alternatively, we may simply find ourselves realising, “they’re not the same person I fell in love with”, having judged them narrowly as the ‘person’ they were and felt blindsided by the impermanence. — Possibility

I agree it's a simple enough process, yet complex in its response to visual stimuli. You seem stuck on the existential angst of aging. It's as if you keep projecting some sort of fear about aesthetical beauty. What if someone finds an older woman beautiful? From personal experience, I find many things beautiful in life; nature, life, truth, people, places, things, etc.. And in our context, I find women beautiful whether they are young or old.

Of course, most people get that there is a mind, body, spirit connection, but you keep denying the body aspect of that phenomenon. If I were to use your interpretation or theory in this scenario, then when a couple is young or old, and one partner develops a brain disorder or pathology, the other partner would cease and desist. You would not love your partner because their brain is not working the way you expect it to. You would effectively say to yourself, 'gee, I married that person because I really loved their mind, but not their body or spirit.'

jorndoe!

Should I take your silence, as acquiescence, that you don't have answers to my (existential, metaphysical, and phenomenological) questions?

LOL

question. And still pending are your answers to quite a few questions almost all asking for you to explain some of your word salads. You need not reply; I'm out of the 3017amen business. That's because you're incoherent. — tim wood

Surely you're not hiding behind ad hominem, are you?
LOL

Make what case? Waiting for you to make yours. But — jorndoe

. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?

Share them. We can discuss the reasons. — Frank Apisa

Subscribed! 180, Tim, jorndoe and others have yet to make their case. I'm not really sure why.

When I ask them questions that, say, relate to existentialism, metaphysics and phenomenology, they seem to be at a loss.

I suppose using common sense, relative to sociology, Atheism is a minority belief system for a reason. That said, the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster.

And so I wonder why they can't support their belief system?

What wasn't particularly interesting was noted in the comment, which isn't the same as this thread. — jorndoe

Great! Could you answer at least one of these existential questions?

1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

s'well, now you just have to justify why you've got it right and others ought believe so as well, that's what might be interesting here (we'll see) — jorndoe

What am I right or wrong about, I'm confused.

I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever 3017amen is on about apparently is. — jorndoe

I'm a Christian Existentialist.

Not really. There really isn't much to it. If you'd read it as-is, that is. — jorndoe

Gee that's sort of a paradox isn't it? Why are you participating in this thread if it's not interesting?

anything, it's perhaps more interesting that you see it as another opportunity to launch presumptuous questions and slightly misrepresentative commentary, while still not even attempting to justify your faith sufficiently) — jorndoe

Are you hiding behind ad hominem attacks instead of answering the questions about atheism/ nothing?
LOL

don't share your belief — jorndoe

This is a discussion about the concept of God. The concept of God impacts over 75% of philosophical domain's primarily because it's about something and not nothing.

If you believe in nothing, then it seems your choice is to believe in atheism. A belief is a belief. :chin:

don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism. — jorndoe

That's an interesting comment.

1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

Quite, also we might be intimately involved in a myriad of process beyond our comprehension, or preview. — Punshhh

Indeed. No exceptions taken.

This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with. — Punshhh

I don't see it problematic at all. It's relative to the Metaphysical features of consciousness, which are different from that of Darwinian instinct. The analogies would be mathematical ability and/or musical genius. Neither of which confer any biological advantages in providing for survival of the fittest.

Similarly, if the atheist cosmological argument centers around materialism, it fails. As it relates to conscious existence, atheist Dennett acquiesced to the phenomenon of qualia, which is simply a euphemism for Metaphysical phenomenon from consciousness.

In short, Love is not needed for survival yet is a universally intrinsic and/or an innate feature of conscious existence. As it relates to musical and mathematical ability respectively, how could this (Love) universally subjective, yet seemingly objective truth, be so critical to the human condition?

That is just one of many things that relate to our self-awareness which is in itself, distinct from emergent properties of instinct.

Should I take your response as an acquiescence by silence? Atheism doesn't appear to be able to answer the many many questions about existence.

Perhaps embellish your 180 to something a bit stronger. LOL

No. And you never will until you settle on some meaning of your own. What is a "sense" of understanding? What does that even mean? What is "subjective" as you use it here? And is that an "or" or an "of"? — tim wood

It means that only you know you. But that's a little confusing because you said you really don't understand the thing-in-itself. And that thing-in-itself is you, right?

Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?
— tim wood
Both, no? — 3017amen

Both not. Or do you mean that saying it's so makes it so? — tim wood

Are both true?

The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ? — 3017amen
And here I close. Because I can get no sense from you, and you ignore my requests for clarity. Well, two can play - and one necessarily. If you have a point, you have been careful to avoid making it. Bye. — tim wood

Mmmm, let's see here. Am I to conclude ( I hate to sound redundant) that you do not even understand your own existence? I mean, first, you said that only things that are meaningful to you, are important to you. Now, you don't seem to be sure about how things become important to you through your own lack of understanding about cognition.

I'm confused here. How can you possibly argue against the concept of a God, and its existence, when you cannot even understand your own?

Please share!