Great! How? — tim wood

Revelatory knowledge. It occurs in consciousness. LOL

Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall. — jorndoe

Really? The synthetic a priori is critical in Kant's critique of logic. The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

So, still not substantiated. — jorndoe

Let's go through each of the domains one at a time:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Let's see have I missed any other domains? Is that more than 75% of the domains of philosophy? LOL

don't recall having taken a logic course that posit any gods either. — jorndoe

Are you sure about that? What's a synthetic a priori proposition ?

quote="jorndoe;428568"]must be a study rounding up the statistics somewhere ... where'd ya' get'em all from, 3017amen[/quote]

I stand corrected , it's more than 75%.

Maybe that word, "God", is just so watered down that it can be made to match anything for the occasion? — jorndoe

Indeed. The unfortunate, or fortunate paradox, seems to be that philosophy itself, lives in words.

That I am entirely comfortable asking you what you mean because I do not know what you mean ought to suggest to you that that I have.

Hey Tim, I'm not following you there?
— tim wood

Now I am waiting for you to put your money where your mouth is. Say something simple to get us off the ground. — tim wood

Sure! I know God exists. And you know God doesn't exist. Does that, succinctly, summarize it?

The question was, paraphrasing, what do you know about God. And you're answer was, paraphrasing, that you know nothing about God. — tim wood

That seems a bit strange. How did you arrive at that conclusion?

I'm eager to see how you handle an argument, presumably in favour, about something you know nothing about. — tim wood

What do you mean by favour? Are you referring to the information I shared with Daniel?

What does this mean? — tim wood

Hey Tim, is it safe to assume you haven't spend a good amount of time contemplating metaphysics and existentialism(?).

To be able to debate the existence of something, one must be able to talk about that something; one must be able to describe the experiences one has had of that something — Daniel

Understood. I posited the ineffable, the phenomenal, the experiential.

far, you have not written a single sentence in which you describe your experience of God. — Daniel

If I formulate words sufficient to say I saw God and he spoke to me, would you believe it?

You have said that your god is the god of christians, the god of the bible, the god of Aquinas; I do not know what kinds of gods those gods are, and I am not going on Google to look them up because, as I said, I am having this debate with you and not with Google or anyone else. — Daniel

Sure, and that's okay. A simple illustration of parent-child or student-teacher relationships provide for the distinctions between knowing and not knowing. You can read about the religious experience or you can put yourself in that position to have a religious experience yourself.

Once again, if I told you I had a religious experience which I have had many, and/or if I had a revelatory-phenomenal or ineffable experience, or even If I said I saw God and he spoke to me, how would that compare to researching cognitive science about the same, as I've suggested? Wouldn't the cognitive science hold more weight? I would like to think so. So that's why I suggested that research.

My experiences, being just one of many, only serve to provide for a subjective truth that exists within all of us. And that 'all of us', is what I'm trying to get you to understand/focus on.

What arguments in favour of the existence of God do you have? — Daniel

Cosmology, metaphysics, phenomenology, ethics logic , existentialism and epistemology/conscious existence.

All of those domains at some juncture, posit God as the standard axiomatic criterion.

LOL....as simple as there being something and not nothing :blush:

If I may suggest, start with something simple. — tim wood

What is so difficult... , I'm not following you there, sorry brother.

Is that another way of saying that you are in some fashion frustrated with my answers or they are not what you want to hear? I thought I provided sceintific references to your questions, which dovetail my personal experiences. Not sure what your point is there.

What don't you understand?

And just as we were doing so well! And now I have no idea what you mean. What do you mean? — tim wood

You asked me to explain existence, hence yours and my quotes:

Me: We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?

You: I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know.

Me: As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.

Me: What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.

Make any sense now...and so, what would be the distinction between the two explanation's of the man called Jesus who had a conscious existence, and your own conscious existence? Or, in the case of the cosmological God, if space and time are a mystery, how should one go about explaining it? Isn't space and time a theory?

Off course, what you experience is not what I experience. We do not occupy the same space. As a consequence, what you think is different to what I think. Our conceptions may be very similar, but never the same; hence, I ask for your definition of God, so that I can make an idea of the thing you believe in and compare it to my idea of God. — Daniel

Indeed. What other implications does that have in phenomenology and existentialism, you think? Alternatively, in cognitive science, William James & Maslow (to name a few) had studied the 'religious' experience quite extensively. While it is indeed true that truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation we can still share similar experiences. And similar to the NDE, many individuals have been consistent in their reports of same. Personally, my 'religious' experiences have been very similar to what James and Maslow have studied/reported.

And so logically, to make the leap to God as being causational, is arguably that foregoing subjective truth which exceeds verbal formulation; ineffable as one would say. A knowing nonetheless. Or, if you prefer, a Kantian type of intuition.

Then describe to me its non-physical, non-objective attributes. I mean, if it exists, it must have at least one attribute other than "it is Jesus". — Daniel

His consciousness is metaphysical, as is ours. As a rhetorical question, are we able to fully explain consciousness?

How do you (you, 3017amen-I am not asking anyone else but you) perceive God? Or are you trying to argue in favour of the existence of something you have never experienced? — Daniel

Correct. I cannot argue for your experience because it's not mine to argue. And specifically, as mentioned, Jesus also had a consciousness, how should I explain that? Otherwise cosmologically, much like space and time itself, God remains a mystery, as it should be. Should one take a different position here?

Are you saying Jesus, in the condition of human, chose to be a god, and then became a god? — Daniel

No. I'm saying you made that choice not to embrace the concept, remember?

A bit discomforting that one is the captain of one's ship and master of one's fate only to the extent that the culture allows. — unenlightened

Indeed. The truth in freedom speaks volumes. Ideally, at least... .

People who start learning philosophy in their spare time often start with god questions or atheism questions, and those two groups will argue forever. — fdrake

Again, that's a misnomer. God is posited in 75% of philosophical domain's.

Sure. Purple flying hippopotami great and small in countless number control all aspects of the universe. Prove I'm wrong. — tim wood

No. What I meant was explaining your own existence metaphysically. In other words, your conscious existence.

What is your point? — tim wood

Tim!

As I've said over in the Lounge, existentially, one does not know the true nature of their own existence, and so why should this be any different (?).

Now if you want to speculate metaphysically, you're more than welcome to elucidate there.

Pretty simple for you who is writing it and know what you are thinking. — Daniel

Interesting. Does this suggest that there is a subjective truth at work?

someone asked me to describe why certain dog is considered a dog, I would say: it is considered a dog because it has fur, four legs, a tail, a wet nose, a stout, canine teeth, paws, it barks, it was born from another dog, it walks on its four legs, etc. I would continue until I have described the dog to the best of my knowledge. — Daniel

I'm not following that. From history, Jesus was known to be a man. Describing his physical, objective attributes, as you have in describing a dog's, would be a bit redundant I think.

have no idea what you are trying to imply in (1). Are you saying Jesus is God because people believe Jesus to be God? (By the way, I am not a citizen of the United States of America nor I know its history) — Daniel

I am saying that objectively, he was recorded in history as being both man and God. I have no problem with that interpretation. George Washington was recorded in history as being a man.

so, you don't believe God is all that omni stuff? What exceptions are you not taking? — Daniel

No I don't. Who knows the mind of God and/or man? For instance, do you know the nature of your existence? Of course not. Why should this be any different?

3) answering the question, what makes Jesu — Daniel

This is called simple volitional existence. In other words, you have made that choice. End of story right?

think so. I asked you what you know, and you have answered with what you believe. That both is and is not an answer. As to knowledge it is nothing, but given the context it also says that you don't know. Fair enough. — tim wood

Really? Not sure fairness, has anything to do with it.

We are talking about the existence of something. In this case, in human terms, it would be the human being called Jesus. Using your words, what does knowledge have to do with existence?

Why is Jesus God?

I believe there is an origin. I also believe that given certain conditions, you would be able to know all about the origin. I do not believe in the supernatural, intelligent, omnipresent, omniscient, omnipotent god of the bible, and I do not believe either that the character of jesus portrayed in the bible is god.

What makes jesus god? — Daniel

Okay, got it, thanks. The Lounge is fine, since this seems to be more of an informal query on your part.

1. The simple answer as to why Jesus is God is the same reason why it is believed that George Washington was the first POTUS.

2. Regarding the Omni-stuff; no exceptions taken. I think it was Anselm who decided that one. And those after him, Aquinas and other's, critiqued it.

3. Your choice on the historical character of Jesus, and that he was/was not the human model of God.

Pretty simple stuff.

It seems like the moderator's made this a private discussion of some sort...as I cannot find it on the public-open section...

I believe in the God of Creation. Does that answer your concern?

I'll be happy to provide for discursive discussion, but have the rules changed? Is this a private forum of some kind?

Consider, for example the analytical skills versus the emotional outbursts of our current batch of hyper-masculine leaders. — unenlightened

Unen!

Thanks for the contribution, and your thoughts. Lots to unpack here. But, I couldn't help but underscore your quote by recognizing its significance.

The old gender stereotype's of women having the market on emotions seems outdated. In fact, probably a lie endorsed by the rubrics of the time. As you so well pointed out (not to get too political here) the archetype of the current potus having very thin skin and often overreactive seemingly out of pure emotion and/or insecurity about his abilities, is a pretty bold example.

Also, consider that men and women are both sentient creatures, but having different goals and motivations (to their sentience). For instance, men might be more apt to get defensive over their lack of mechanical skills, coordination or sports abilities, while women might get more defensive over their clothing choices, their choice in men, or their children's misbehavior. I think the short answer to the distinction there is that both sexes just manifest their emotions differently.

But the important point is the self-awareness that comes with being an emotional creature or Being. I remember talking with a good friend of mine who's a retired engineer. And we were talking about self-awareness as it relates to being in a business meeting. He said in so many words 'its all about feelings'. Of course, one must wear whichever hat/multitask is required to get'r-done, but yes, we all just want to be loved and recognized. The balancing act between emotion and Logos is an ongoing process... .

am sorry I am being so insistent, but it is still not clear to me what your definition of god is; so, if I asked you: describe to me the god which/whose existence you are trying to defend. What would you say? — Daniel

No problem. In a word, Jesus. The Jesus that is portrayed in the Christian Bible.

It's starting to sound like you might be an Agnostic and not an Atheist, just a hunch.

Isn't Jesus the son of God? — Daniel

That's what I read in the Christian Bible. I mean, that's one interpretation, no?

What is your idea of god?

Sure, the Christian God called Jesus.

So tell us what you know about Him. — tim wood

While I'm waiting for Daniel to respond, sure I'll banter with you.

Who's "Him"? ( Are you referring to a gender/genderless God?)

Sure! I'm a Christian existentialist and I would be approaching this in a few ways.

1. Negative/Apophatic theology.
2. All domains of philosophy can be argued.

Are you a positive atheist? Meaning, is your position something like: "I know God doesn't exist". Or, "I don't believe God exists", et.al . ?

cannot think of a single time it was done. So such discussions here are usually a disaster. — tim wood

Indeed, religion has a habit of giving God a bad name.

suppose, next, 72.8% of academic philosophers are "fanatical atheists", 3017amen. :roll:
Give it up, raving on with mis/disinformation doesn't do anyone any favors. — jorndoe

Interesting you appear to fit the bill of Einstein's fanatical atheism. I didn't say over 75% of philosophers are theists did I?

Actually how about this, I'll challenge any atheist on this site to debate EOG using all domain's of philosophy. Would you like to go toe-to-toe with me?
LOL

BTW, relative to cognitive science, or perhaps more Freudian than not, most extreme atheists (or extreme fundamentalists) will more often than not default to ad hominem as some sort of defense mechanism. As an unbiased observation, Einstein, who was not even a theist, seemingly recognized the phenomenon:

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

The concept of God, right or wrong, is always invoked in the majority of philosophical domain's as the criterion for the existence of things. Philosophy is an intellectual exercise involving many states of human conscious existence.

I'm not saying this because I'm a Christian Existentialist. I'm saying it because it's a no-brainer. As a rudimentary example ( though I studied philosophy in college), pick up any publication called philosophy-made-simple or its equivalent, where the domains of ethics epistemology logic metaphysics and contemporary philosophy are summarized. They all involve God as a discoursive criterion in their respective domains.

Trust me, it's not me projecting the facts. Like it or not, God's invoked. I'm not a preacher or theist so I have no special interest or hidden agenda. Nonetheless, be cautious of either the extremist atheist, or the extremist fundamentalist.

It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.

True or false? This is really philosophy 101.

You must be one of the angry atheists LoL

Provide statistics that prove me wrong. And by the way, I don't recommend hiding behind ad hominem; if you're scared say you're scared.

That's actually an ignorant answer Baden. Please then explain why over at least 75% of the philosophical domains invoke God's existence? It's invoked in ethics, epistemology, logic, metaphysics, and contemporary philosophy.

If I'm incorrect I'll stand corrected. If I'm correct, it might support my theory that there are more angry and bitter atheists on this forum than not.

Well I admit this is where I am stuck. I have possibly in mind that an atemporal being maybe like a brick - the brick is timeless - so the left side of the brick is static, but the right side of the brick can grow to accommodate additional actions. — Devans99

Devans!

How does that square with the Multiverse theory ? In quantum uncertainty, we know there are things that exist that we cannot observe, so can the atemporal and temporal exist within this realm?

You have already received many good responses to your concern. I'll only add that the concept of inner peace and joy, can come from an interminable love for thyself, the world (nature), and other people.

So if life and happiness is about all the possible relationships of Being, what greater relationship is there to Love?

There must be something that turns the metaphysical substance (energy) in your theory into physical ideas (or something you recognize). What is it? How do you become aware of the question? — Daniel

Great questions. I think you are referring to what is called the hard problem of consciousness. The common examples include, but are not limited to, the perception of the color red, metaphysical identity/what's it like to be a bat, etc.. This phenomena is similar to the metaphysical nature of conscious existence.

Meaning, it seems this sense of wonderment/metaphysical agency/energy that appears in our stream of consciousness is naturally existential. Questions, originate from our innate sense of wonderment. In short, you become aware of questions through your being self-aware from consciousness.

Do these questions have physical images associated with them as contained in our stream of consciousness? Yes they do. But some don't. Some questions appear as sentient impulses.. And that sentience takes the form of the will; metaphysical will in nature. (Have you read Schopenhauer?)

I am asking you what it is in the self awareness of an individual which is required for the existence of questions? — Daniel

Think of ideas themselves (or wonderment) as part of a metaphysical agency or energy, manifested by or from our natural stream of consciousness. Ideas come to us at random, for us to then pick and choose... .

Quantumatics and relativity are established (already posted an example). — jorndoe

Forgive me for interrupting, but what exactly is the analogy to causation? Are you guys relating quantum physics to probability/the likelihood of a type of Heraclitus Logos, an objective cosmic law, etc.?

Otherwise, there will always be an element of uncertainty in nature; determinism and indeterminism, chance and choice, changing and unchanging, etc. Sure, QM as an element of both. The quantum uncertainty of an electron cannot have a well defined position and momentum at the same time. You can make measurement of the position to obtain a value, but the value of the momentum is completely uncertain. So for a general quantum state, it is apparently impossible to say in advance what value will be obtained by a single measurement, only probabilities can be assigned.

In that sense, yes, the Logos of causation appears that there are only ranges of outcomes available. But here's the important part. The system of QM is indeterministic as well as contingent. Yet, on the other hand, the experimenter determines whether the measurement shall be of position or momentum, so the range of alternatives is decided by an external agent. And so as far as the electron is concerned, the nature of alternatives is fixed necessarily, and the actual alternative adopted is contingent.

To me, one of many implications of the quantum state of affairs is that it eliminates complete randomness and chaos from the universe/existence. It combines choice and chance/contingency and necessity. It suggests yet another dipolar driving force in nature. The world is neither wholly determined or arbitrary.

This also suggests, in my view, that a participatory anthropic involvement of causation is at work. Kind of like cognitive science/our stream of consciousness. Random thoughts appear to us; it is our choice to choose which thoughts are of value. Causation, in this way, has intrinsic metaphysical value to humans, no?.

I agree with you. I'd like to know why you think questions need self-awareness to exist? — Daniel

Good question. It appears that most if not all lower life forms are not self-aware enough to wonder about things and ask questions. The metrics of instinct, versus the intellect in human consciousness, obviously leans toward instinct being subordinate to intellect. And so for whatever reason the intellect that is predominant in human's provides for the ability to ask questions.

This leads to other questions. For example, if self-awareness is the driving force behind the existence of questions, what is the purpose of asking questions? (What is the purpose of self-awareness and intellect?) The ability to ask questions themselves do not appear to offer survival value for lower/higher life forms. Accordingly, instinct and genetically coded emergent properties are all that's needed.

what is it in a nascent question which requires self-awareness for such process to exist (to begin; to continue)? — Daniel

Conservation of energy.