Shure. How do we confirm the existence of things then?

I'm not quite following that could you rephrase the statement?

Sure. I suppose you could say as a similar analogy that this statement is a given:

All events must have a cause.

Is that a given?

Oh okay well I have tons of questions first of all are you saying the concept of God is abstract?

Aren't all metaphysical theories unsupported/incoherent/illogical?

And how do you know God is not ineffable?

Tick tock tick tock

I'd recommend you look at the untenable Atheist thread OP. There are ton's of questions over there...

LOL

Not to sound disparaging, I'm just a bit confused, why do you feel the need to contribute anything on this subject matter? Are you not happy with Atheism?

Otherwise, okay, great! Now what, anything?

Sorry, but it really begged those questions...my thought is if you were content, you would not be interested. But then the more I'm thinking about it, maybe it's your innate sense of wonder that's causing your curiosity?

LOL

Is it a given?

Do my subjective thoughts make me a theist (or is it a metaphysical theory)?

Edit: Bonus question, are you an Atheist?

LOL

The religious experience: Subjective Truth's/Soren Kierkegaard...you'll figure it out, I think....

In the meantime, not to drop book titles, but William James, The Varieties of Religious Experience is pretty much a lucid, classic read, if you don't have it already... .

If you can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can you explain the nature of your belief (system) that a God does exist (?).

In logical terms, through Apophatic or negative theology.

For example if one say's they think God is spiritual, that's just another way of saying God is not a physical being. As a metaphysical theory, I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light).

The logic there is a form of inference from nature. Consider the notion from the OP:

All events must have a cause.

That's a synthetic a priori judgement. Meaning its a synthesis between innate forms of intuition and experience about the world. However, we only know the statement is partially true but we're not exactly certain, because we have not experienced every event.

So we look at existing things to basically corroborate or infer as to whether that (causal relationships) could be true. Physical science almost always uses synthetic propositions or judgements to advance a theory about a some-thing.

If all events must have a cause is true, what is the takeaway? What if it's false? What would that mean?

Well, perhaps you can answer the question I put to Wayfarer then. What are these questions which a belief in God causes you to ask that were not there before?

Well, the first one is the ideal of love viz. memes. And through revelation (revealed knowledge) an awareness of same.

For example, say an individual grows-up in a dysfunctional environment that does not validate love. Say that person grew-up in a drug infested high crime area and that's all the person knows to survive. That is what they've been taught to survive.

As a result, that same person may be confused, sad, or otherwise in time, come to develop feelings of so-called existential angst. They may even be subconscious feelings. They do bad things to themselves and others but don't really understand or know why they do what they do. Almost like animal instinct.

Maybe then they come into a situation of prolonged isolation, near death experience, an accident or unhappiness and calamity of some sort. They decide to make an attempt at introspection and/or spiritual guidance. Then by coincidence, happenstance and Revelations occur. A revealed knowledge about a some-thing that was missing. The resulting feelings of that new revealed knowledge has liberated that person. It has made that individual break free from, as Wayfarer implied, another form of meme. Now they want more. More revelation.

From a human condition standpoint, they are now seemingly operating from a new paradigm or meme that is much more heathier. So in this case, now, that person doesn't rely on their old consciousness as a way to survive. Essentially speaking, their quality of life has changed. They have a renewed consciousness about themselves; a new awareness about their condition.

Did God do it or was it a coincidence that that person had a transformation...I do not know. Was that knowledge there the whole time; they just needed to introspect to find it...I don't know.

But that person knows.

Philosophically, in part, is that a Subjective truth? What would someone like SK say?

That is a popular internet meme, supposed to convey the idea that ‘belief in God is an end to all questioning’. However if you really did come to believe, I think it would provoke enormous questions; it might cause one to question many things that one previously assumed. So the idea that it’s an ‘end to questioning’ can only really be entertained on the basis of the assumption that it really doesn’t mean anything in the first place. — Wayfarer

.... precisely! Thanks for sharing Wayfarer... !

... philosophically?

Hey Praxis...I would say yes, if that's your choice.

Sorry TS, I haven't been purposely ignoring you ( I enjoy the exchanges) I've just been all over the place lately with work, here, and everywhere...wearing a lot of different hats right now LOL.

Anyway, I hope this statement will clear things up. Since you understand philosophy, when I talk about the nature of things, I'm basically referring to Kantian things-in -themselves.

I believe Kant was right, humans don't know thing-in-themselves. AKA the nature of existence. I think that's one reason why he made a big deal about critiquing pure reason. Pure reason of course, is a priori formal logic. It's central to the ontological argument for the existence of God as we know. It's meaningless. It leaves out experience (human sensory experience/ phenomena/cognition, etc.).

However, even though human phenomena won't tell us for sure about the nature of things, it gives us clues to the likelihood or plausibility for reasonable theories about same.

So, that leads to your question about justification for a claim of belief. Does my personal belief suffer from similar difficulties? Sure it does. But I'm not a Fundy either.

I won't digress too much about the value of the Religious Experience that has been well documented from the likes of Maslow, William James, Analytical Psychology/Carl Jung, NDE phenomena, et al. since that is a subject for another day. However, it is very impactful to say the least.

Music theory. Back In school, I had a debate with my professor about music theory. I didn't want to learn it because it was too hard. I was an ear trained musician. After much argumentation, we talked after class. He said, 'yes you're right Jim, I didn't want to tell you that music came before theory because if I told you that it would make you guys not want to learn theory.'

So yes firstly, I believe the phenomenon of music came first, then someone figured it out (theory). (There are minor exceptions in classical music... .) Secondly, to your point, there does not seem to be a clear answer, only a 'belief' as to the nature of it. In any case, what we do know is, that it doesn't confer any biological advantages. And we know the sounds of music itself takes primacy over music theory.

And as far as its second cousin, mathematics, for some reason my Kantian intuition tells me mathematics has an independent existence.

In other words I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater LoL. Some of his stuff was obviously very impactful and still useful to this day.

I'm not sure I'm following you on the examined life introspection thing though. I believe that was part of his critique or concern that there were limits to pure reason; the a priori.

In this case, as opposed to sensory experiences we gain from living life.

Be well.

I want to give your post the analysis it deserves so I will only answer one of the two questions tonight and the other one about experience tomorrow.

The latter question about independent existence has been debated quite a bit on this forum in its various forms. And of course it's an intriguing question and is fun to postulate over... .

You probably know what side of the fence I would lean towards, which is I believe mathematics has an independent existence as apposed to a human invention or an Darwinion evolved trait. (Same with music theory. ) I don't have any reason to believe the second method springs from a refinement of the first. And even if one were to assume that somehow they were evolved traits to some degree, it would still not explain the ability to intellectualize about them. Talking about abstract's confers no biological survival advantage.

But there again you suggested nobody knows. So back to the OP, if nobody knows how does the Atheists account for those mysteries? And if they can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can they explain the nature of their belief (system) that a God doesn't exist (?).

That's not what he said, he said it was metaphysics.

If SK were to write today, I think he would be remiss not to consider nature's secrets along with cognitive science, which in theory would take his existential angst (mystery) to its current status of understanding. What follows would be a 21st century leap of faith.

Otherwise more to your point, I haven't claimed I understand God's essence or existence. So I'm not following you there.

It is refreshing none-the-less to hear you say that you cannot explain the nature of Love's existence.

Unless I'm mistaken then, are you thinking nihilism is the logical conclusion or outcome to that inquiry or mystery?

Sure absolutely.

1. Your point is well taken. Atheism would deny the religious experience as has been reported in cognitive science. Or maybe better said, they would not associate a god with such experiences. They're entitled to that choice to believe otherwise. However, it begs the question of what does "otherwise" really mean. No - thing?
They can't even explain things in themselves.

2. Your concerns about God's existence I view in this way. You mentioned ontology. The ontological argument of course is based solely on a priori/pure reason. It's meaningless. Most know that. Traditional Theism endorses that logic. I don't. The irony is atheism endorses the same kind of logic relative to explaining things in existence.

3. Your question about what I think about whether God exists independently of humans existence is of course not answerable. However my answer here is consistent to the theme in the OP which is, I speculate that God would exist like mathematical abstracts exist. Which isn't too far off from the notion that all events must have a cause.

I've broad-brushed a lot but I'm trying to be as succinct as I can....

You're not paying attention. I'm not discussing metaphysics. I'm discussing the nature of a thing or things. Existence precedes essence; the central theme in Existentialism.

You can go home now professor, you just got an F.

First of all I'm not a 'theist'. However I posit that a theist, atheist, et.al . is unable to adequately explain the nature of those kinds of things.

My guess is that it's similar to the ineffable feelings of love. And maybe philosophically one could argue that love is a mottled color of subjective and objective truth.

How would one capture the phenomena of Love in words?

I believe God is an ineffable experience, and a genderless spiritual force of energy.

I don't think that fits into the traditional theistic paradigm.

Sure here's the thesis from your Kierkegaard quote that's relevent to my argument:

Does existence have primacy over essence or the reverse?

Right?

Is that what your way of saying that your atheism is untenable?

I mean you didn't even answer any of my concerns.

Tick tock tick tock

I don't have an answer for mathematical abstracts. And neither do you or anyone else.

Hahaha, was that you who gave me a reach-around the other night?
LOL

Absolutely banno it's fine to say I don't know. But positive atheism doesn't say that.

In my case I'm not interested in being an agnostic. I took the leap of faith years ago as a Christian existentialist.

Hey Tim ! I never said God did it. The Atheist say God didn't do it.

Yeah I don't think it's an all or nothing dichotomization exercise though.

Some stuff was very useful. With respect to intuition, it seems he got that one right. Like I alluded to in my earlier post here, synthetic propositions are the mainstay in the sciences... .

The point is there's much more to living life than pure reason.

Gotcha....thus:

Time is eternity
eternity is time
to view them as opposites
Is man's perversity.

No, it has something to do with Atheists lack of ability to explain them adequately

You asked me a question so I provided more detail... Surely you're not making excuses are you?

LOL

Awesome. Reminds me of:

Existence is time
Time is existence
To see them as opposites
Is man's stubbornness

Good stuff!!

Hey Poetic, cool stuff dude!!!

Assuming these questions are meant to somehow support theism, you should probably share that reasoning first. "


Hey Praxis, thanks for asking:

1.Mathematical abstracts. Why do we have two ways or this dual capacity for knowing the world? Consider falling objects, we avoid them through our cognitive/perceptive abilities. One does not calculate the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects to survive in the jungle do they? What survival value does math hold? In Darwinism, there is no reason to believe that the second method springs from a refinement of the first. The former does have a biological need, the latter has no biological significance at all.

2. If I'm driving my car daydreaming, hit someone, and kill myself, how did that accident occur? (How did my consciousness allow me to do that?)

3. I am a composer and performer of music. I am trained both by ear and music theory. What biological significance does discussing music theory hold?


Per your request, I'd be happy to parse any of those with you....

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red to me.

Does the conscious and subconscious mind work together in a [illogical] contradictory manner (p and not p)?

Explain how I come to know something; what is the nature of a Belief?

Try to tackle any one of those, and I'd love to parse it with you, if you care to... .

Tick tock tick tock

No you haven't. Unless it consists of "god did it" written on the back of a copy of 'Watchtower'

I never said "God did it", did I? On the contrary, unless I'm mistaken, you are saying 'God did not do it', right?

Anyway, to answer your question, let me paraphrase a few from the OP:

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red to me.

Does the conscious and subconscious mind work together in a [illogical] contradictory manner (p and not p)?

Explain how I come to know something; what is the nature of a Belief?

Try to tackle any one of those, and I'd love to parse it with you, if you care to... .

How about a quote from the man himself to support your view? — Valentinus

"I reason from existence, not towards existence."

Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but that gibberish didn't explain one's epistemic truth.