Define concrete. Why does it confer any biological advantages? Do you have scientific/philosophical evidence/reasons to substantiate such a claim?

Atheism is the either an admittance of the non-existence of a god (WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED) or the lack of belief in one similar to how others use agnosticism though such a defined (agnostic) atheist perhaps wouldn't claim it's impossible to know such a thing exists. GIVEN YOU HAVE DEFINED IT!

There are things that exist in reality and are separate from you. That's the most that I require in terms of substance metaphysics and from here perhaps we could interest ourselves in what things are emergent from other things or live in non-reductive states (investigate the nature of said entities). I'm unsure if this is neutral monism, materialism/physicalism, or an objective idealism but this is my loose perspective. Though, many parts (a huge number of them) largely correlate with extensively physical properties or relations in our world (however you define physical). Feel free to tell me when you can use your mind to defy our experience of being rooted to the ground by the phenomenon of gravitation (even objective idealism wouldn't do this but you get my point). — substantivalism

I'm not following your logic. here's what I asked you:

Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.

Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..

The feeling of the color red, music, mathematical ability, etc. confer little if any biological advantages. Get it? For example, would running gravitational calcs that explain the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle?

You haven't defined what a god is so I can't specify whether it doesn't exist, it's improbable, or the arguments for it are lacking. At this point i'm an ignostic. — substantivalism

I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.

You gave questions that concern whether we are talking about our ability to know them (epistemology), our psychology, or our social connections which go into influence/form said abilities/ideas. You are doing what you seem to do best and dodge any of my questions aimed at specifying/clarifying the discussion. This is a rather dishonest move on your part and perhaps it is inherent in who you are. — substantivalism

Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away.

You also haven't honestly answered any of my clarifying questions and have merely dodged so that we cannot have a legitimate discussion. Can you even define physicalism? — substantivalism

You mean materialism?

Okay, if I recall the golden rule came from certain eastern philosophies starkly pre-dating christianity. Also, you didn't seem to get a good balance of perspectives from you philosophy 101 course. — substantivalism

Are you suggesting that Eastern philosophy had mutually excluded Christian philosophy? Accordingly, the irony is, I would think having a 'good balance' would preclude your desire to dichotomize them. Perhaps a remedial course is appropriate here. LOL

try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it. — substantivalism

I'm not exactly sure, but let me try. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. Does that square with your understanding?

Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies. — substantivalism

That's a shame, Kant and Schopenhauer are very influential in there metaphysical theories. You are at a great disadvantage in this debate. You will be tested. Can you handle it, or will you cry foul, that will become the question.

Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing. — substantivalism

I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework.

You have to define a WILL coherently. Is a loosely defined soul or is just your inner conscious thoughts or does it include unconscious ones as well? — substantivalism

The Will is metaphysical in nature. Do you understand metaphysics? You know, kind of like the hard problem of consciousness. Atheist like to use the word qualia which by definition is appropriate here. Make sense?

Choosing not to live isn't easy it compromises all of my desires or learned experiences as well as future goals I possess. There are relationships I've created I do not desire to leave and there are experiences or actions I still wish to undertake — substantivalism

Think about the nature of what it means to have goals & desires. Are they metaphysical features of conscious existence and self-awareness that higher forms of life possess? In other words, who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide? That makes no sense.

Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? — substantivalism

Sure. What is love? Physical, metaphysical or both?


Let me repost my causation questions to you. You didn't even attempt an answer:

1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

I suppose being a troll is better than you dropping the F-bomb. Hey looky there, your character score is improving LOL

In principle, if Nirvana means that everyone's sense of self is transcended, I think that would solve the problem for you, yes?

So the theory would be, what does it look like where there is a place of transcendence ( i.e. a place or sense of timelessness, beyond the ordinary range of perception... )? That might potentially work with your theory of interminable beauty, goodness, etc... .

Be well Timmy!

And you're asked a direct question that you do not answer — tim wood

Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

Does that not compute for you?

No worries. I know it can be frustrating at times. I'll let you ponder my last post to you, and if you're so inclined to parse my comments, feel free to provide some import. Otherwise, it looks like another 'I'm crying foul' response from you. :grin:


do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it?
— tim wood

Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?

Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?



The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection.
— tim wood

Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

Hey Johndoe! Aren't you the same guy who was wrong about challenging me over the fact most all domain's of philosophy invoking God?

If I recall, wasn't it you being initially adversarial... ( I'll find it and post it if you like)?

Open mouth insert foot?

I suggest you consider the problem of evil, and you reply that it is not a problem for you. But you were not asked about your problems. — tim wood

Correct, and neither were you. But you suggested it was a problem. And I said it wasn't.

And I ask you to reflect on the difference between fanatical and angry, and you're reply is a slice of Trump. Deflection, collateral attack, misdirection. At the moment you're a seeming blend of natural psychopath and eight-year-old. Can you do any better? — tim wood

Not sure hiding behind ad hominem is your best approach.
:snicker:

I do not know what a "metaphysical component of consciousness" is. What is it? — tim wood

Think about what it is, that causes you to wonder about causes. Put that into analytical terms. Is that exclusively a physical phenomena?

Simple example: if the physicist didn't have a sense of wonder about causation, would there be any physical discoveries? What about in other walks of life? Engineering, music, medical science, etc. etc.. Without it, what would your quality of life look like viz the human condition? Does your sense of causation and wonderment trump instinct?

The root of (the word) sin is imperfection in achieving a goal - hitting a target - which implies a perfection that was missed. Evil, on the other hand, has no correlative perfection. — tim wood

Don't agree that there is a distinction. Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

Well, recall that Einstein also said he believed in Spinoza's God. That God is hardly one to be a cause of fanatical opposition or, for that matter, fanatical support. There are other Gods believed in which inspire rigorous opposition, and these arguments are often used in support of those beliefs. — Ciceronianus the White

Sure. As I've stated elsewhere, early church politics unfortunately excluded Spinoza's wisdom… . It's a shame. Another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist.

With respect to negative emotion and/or 'fanatical opposition' viz atheism, extremism seems to be the rule rather than the exception. Again, Einstein saw what we are seeing, nothing new there nor has anything changed.

Why do you react so strongly against atheism? — Ciceronianus the White

My reaction is that I treat like cases likely, and different cases differently. Indeed, the OP has inspired your 'rigorous opposition' here.

if someone perceives nature as beautiful, then that colors nature in beauty, which makes nature beautiful in his personal life (mental universe). If nobody perceived nature as beautiful, then nature couldn't be beautiful because nobody would be coloring it in beauty. — TranscendedRealms

Interesting. Consider how one perceives ugliness, and what intrinsic value that might have. Some are motivated by ugliness by creating beauty. In principle, if one were to be in a world that only mirrored beauty, how would we then perceive that beauty? As self-aware Beings, we are hard wired to better ourselves, which in turn, could cause us to seek even more beautiful things because the once beautiful things are now no longer as beautiful as they once were.

I think having this sense of nirvana, would not be possible due to self-awareness and our homeostasis of striving. Nirvana: a transcendent state in which there is neither suffering, desire, nor sense of self, and the subject is released from the effects of karma and the cycle of death and rebirth. It represents the final goal of Buddhism.

Perhaps being indifferent to ugliness would be our sense of nirvana. It would just become a means to an end. Much like rain is a means to the beauty in nature.

There's a difference between fanatical and angry. I commend to you some reflection on the difference. — tim wood

You may want to seek guidance from Pforrest and/or 180 on that one. Forrest was once banned for his anger, and 180 likes to drop F-bombs, so not sure what to tell you there.

Define cause. — tim wood

Cause is a metaphysical component of consciousness. It is your sense of wonder. What causes you to worry about wonder/how does that impact your self-awareness compared to lower life forms? Hint: your quality of life depends on it.

I think you're confusing sin with evil. — tim wood

How so?

180 is just another one of those angry atheists who like to drop the F-bomb. Even Einstein saw the angst:

"The fanatical atheists are like ... who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.”

― Albert Einstein

So the argument is only valid if its question-begging, and invalid when its not, and so cannot be regarded as persuasive by any means. It will only be accepted by those who already accept the conclusion, but then what's the point? — Enai De A Lukal

And what's your point ? There's nothing new under the sun there. The ontological argument is based on formal logic and exclusively a priori. You might want to explore a posteriori kinds of truth's and phenomena.

Otherwise, are mathematical truth's necessary?

Interesting. You're getting a little closer, with your definitions about metaphysical abstracts. See, you're learning LOL. Now you have to link it with states of consciousness and metaphysical phenomena. But most atheists are clueless (Daniel Dennett being one). He wrote a big thick book about consciousness and at the end of it he basically said it's still a mystery. What a buffoon and a waste of money. LOL

Do atheists consider him their God?

As to God, there's always the problem of evil. Btw,did you ever get around to saying what you thought "God" meant, or was, or is? I do not think you did, or if you did, refresh our memory. — tim wood

I don't see a problem with evil; it's just a lack of perfection.

With respect to what God 'meant', you may refer to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge relative to causation. Meaning, do all events have a cause?

This, as far as I can see, was the first use of the term ‘power’ in our discussion (emphasis mine). — Possibility

Okay, in that context, relative to the power behind aesthetical beauty, I'm not sure how the metaphorical brains in a jar are mutually exclusive. Meaning, sure there exists a balance between the inseparable connection of mind and matter, but have you given any thought to Kantian Metaphysics?

Pleasure and Judgment:

What is the relation between the pleasure which is felt in an object experienced as beautiful, and the judgment that the object is beautiful, that is, the judgment of taste?

Consider that the metaphysical component is that which is felt after perceiving the object. There are endless analogies from the feeling of seeing a new born, to seeing a zebra, to seeing a car. It's simple subject-object. How powerful is that feeling?

Or, would you in fact feel more comfortable in parsing material agency (and/or even sexual energy for that matter)? Is that not consistent with the general theme of Eros/romantic love (not Platonic love)?

they’re neither inherent nor universal, but instead refer to patterns of experience — Possibility

I would have to take exception to that and side-in with Kant. Kant's theory was that the emotions of aesthetics are universally communicative : Kant describes the judgment of taste as “based on” a feeling of pleasure, and as claiming that everyone ought to share the subject's feeling of pleasure, or, as he puts it, as claiming the “universal communicability” of the pleasure.

In the alternative, I don't mind digressing into cognitive science/psychology ( i.e. Freud, and others) if you believe that would provide for a better understanding of this connection. Otherwise, I would love to hear your theories concerning the desire to procreate.

I think that remaining or missing piece would conceivably wrap-up the discussion.

This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective. — Possibility

Possibility I believe it was you who introduced 'power' into your theory. I'm confused now. More on that later.

Well looky there another disgruntled atheist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is and answer some of these metaphysical questions, I'd love to hear your answers!

Pointing out someone else’s poor
discourse is not an ad homing. — Pfhorrest

If I recall correctly, you were banned recently for ad hominem/personal attacks on other people. Karma is a mysterious thing. (I suggest you take 180's advice and stop trolling.)

Well, that depends on which particular values you decide to measure - ie. how you structure an evaluative concept of ‘aesthetical beauty’ as a potential. It’s not that I’m discounting it — Possibility

You might find Kant's Metaphysics interesting here, in the form of a question to ponder:

Pleasure and Judgment

What is the relation between the pleasure which is felt in an object experienced as beautiful, and the judgment that the object is beautiful, that is, the judgment of taste? Kant describes the judgment of taste as “based on” a feeling of pleasure, and as claiming that everyone ought to share the subject's feeling of pleasure, or, as he puts it, as claiming the “universal communicability” of the pleasure.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#pagetopright

Answered? Surely you're joking LOL.

I suggest you read what is writing. At least he's interested in Metaphysical discourse.

Not sure personal attacks helps your case Forrest. Hiding behind ad hominem only substantiates my argument that your so-called belief system has way too many holes LOL.

I’m not denying that we commonly think of the world as objects moving and changing through time and space, and that the value and meaning we attribute accordingly is seen as something else entirely - a tangled mess of ‘power’ that we struggle to understand, possess and wield amongst ourselves. This ‘power’ (agency, potential, value) is seen as either inherent in the object/event, or attributed by the mind, but is rarely understood as an aspect of our existence - because for the most part it seems to BE our existence: our subjective experience of the world, our perspective. — Possibility

Possibility! When you say 'power' do you really mean 'energy' or 'material agency'? The reason I ask is that it seems more appropriate or synonymous with a phenomenal based approach to one's theory of aesthetical judgements.

With respect to our subjectivity, sure. We cannot escape the subject-object sensory perception(s). In part, that's what I'm getting at. In other words, we are not brains in a jar.

Note that it’s rarely a conscious or calculating decision - more often one is aware of this as a feeling, thought or action after it has been determined or initiated. — Possibility

No exceptions taken!

We are not simply passive observers of value — Possibility

Correct. We are not simply passive observers (we are active participants). That can be taken in any context of subject-object for which there is no escape. And so, the value of the aesthetic judgement remains part of that 'power' or as I will call it 'energy', that remains most notably existential.

The questions have been how are we to best navigate this energy (sexual energy), material agency, etc..

Feelings of attraction are not always chemistry, and chemistry is not always love. — Possibility

Possibility!

Have we then, ruled out 'chemistry' as a 'virtuous phenomena' between the sexes? Chemistry may not be love (do we know what love is?), but the love for objects seems to exist. Accordingly, thanks for the anecdote form LFB, but I'm wondering what her point was...was she trying to link the phenomena of the aesthetic reaction viz emotion? If so, why was that a bad thing?

I’m still not sure we’re on the same page with regards to Eros. I’m not even sure that you are on the same page - I don’t see material agency as equated with psychic relatedness. A Platonic understanding of Eros describes a development from physical attraction into a spiritual attraction to the eternal idea of Beauty — Possibility

I am not referring to the Platonic interpretation. I'm referring to the original Greek mythological interpretation of Eros which, leads to judgements of aesthetics (beauty) https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-aesthetics/#2.

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.) — 3017amen
Do all things have a cause? Or are there things that in fact violate say the Principle of Sufficient reason? What is causation? Is it Humean or non-Humean? I don't know. . . maybe we should investigate through scientific methodology and metaphysical introspection. Would you mind joining us? — substantivalism

Great, thanks for engaging. Let's look at what Kant said initially, in the form of a three part question.

1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love? — 3017amen
Are you talking about neurobiology, psychology, or epistemology (scientific methodology)? What do you mean by method and explanation? — substantivalism

Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.

Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love? — 3017amen
Again, what are you talking about? Is this about what form of epistemology we can come to know that two people are in love? Are you talking about arbitrary but dictated choices in relationships (one night stand vs. long lasting relationship) which is highly personal? Or the biological indicators of people being in love or starting a relationship (psychology and sociology)? — substantivalism

Great, thanks again for engaging. Let's talk about love, shall we? Firstly, can we agree that there are elements or phenomena associated with Love that are Metaphysical?

Are you talking about epistemology (what method), personal philosophy and introspection (why do I keep living), or psychology/evolutionary biology? — substantivalism

Nice. Well there's a start. It could be any of those domains because they cover the nature of existing things, or the reality of nature, however you want to phrase it. The spectrum is broad, from cosmology to the human condition and everything in between. That's germane to the entire concept of a God, no?

With that said, why would you want to live when you can easily choose not to live? Sounds a bit nihilistic or existential, but your Will provides for that option.

Most of these questions seem to concern the scientific study of psychology, personal arbitrary convictions that may not possess a "best answer", or concern themselves with problems that metaphysicians who are atheist/theist will possess the same problem with. What exactly are you looking for? Metaphysics/philosophy in general has had a problem with understanding or coming to solutions for each of your listed problems. — substantivalism

Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer?

Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans. — substantivalism

Well, two succinct points:

1. Ethics invokes God form philosophy class 101. I didn't personally design the curriculum.

2. With respect to pragmatics sure, what is the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated. Christian Philosophy, no (NT/Mathew)?

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. — substantivalism

Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we?

Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? For some reason, you're not the only one (atheist) who can't answer those questions (180 was pivoting on them too LOL).

I guess the most fundamental question remains. One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence?

It seems as though both of you cannot even explain the existence and non-existence of those things in themselves. How does atheism square the circle? LOL

and I replied I've never claimed or implied anything about "the Will", so why did you ask in the first place and keep on asking? If you have anything intelligent to say that's not a non sequitur vis-à-vis anything I've said, then now's the time to say it, 3017. Otherwise, move along; I've done you the courtesy of posting clear answers to a list of arbitrary questions, so make your tendentious point - apparently you don't agree with something I wrote in this post - or go diddle yourself somewhere — 180 Proof

They are metaphysical questions for which you seemed unable to answer. It is very clear from your one line answers. You are using the classic political pivoting strategy.

And so that leads to the obvious conclusion that you do not understand your own conscious existence (how your Will works/why you choose to live rather than die) .

Because they’re non-sequiturs. Do you know what that term means? It means they have nothing to do with the topic of conversation — Pfhorrest

That couldn't be further from the truth. What is it about metaphysics are you struggling with?

Again it seems as though if the questions are inconvenient for your intellect you ignore them and cry foul.

Welcome aboard! Gee, well, I want to engage in debate and discussion but I'm not sure where to begin with that. I mean it almost seems like a purging of sorts, which is completely fine, however, what is the central point of your argument that are you trying to make?

The only thing that comes across very clearly is you taking exception to stereotyping atheist's. Your socio-political view seem to be a bit rambling. How about taking one of my metaphysical questions and exploring that?

In other words I'm not interested in discussing religion and how it relates to society.

Have you such a survey? — Banno

No I don't. But certainly would not be opposed to studying that... .

Got it - you believe truth is established by majority vote. Setting aside that argumentum ad populum fallacy, this has absolutely nothing to do with the formal deductive proofs of God's existence (KCA, LCA, Argument from Objective Moral Values, Ontological argument). — Relativist

I've never been a proponent of the Ontological argument. It's strictly a priori.

Otherwise, majority ruling has the power from logical inference.

:up:

What does that have to do with proofs of God's existence? — Relativist

You're overlooking the obvious. You said arguments for God's existence have no power to convince anyone God exists. Why then were the majority of citizens convinced enough to put " In God We Trust" on their currency? What about national anthems...etc. etc..etc..

Hahaha. I suppose everyone has their weaknesses' :razz: