I don't consider theology of any importance. I ignore just about every theistic thread on this forum, as they are full of intellectual poverty and third-rate thinkers at best. I usually only deal with Christians when they get in my way, and I do it swiftly, the same way I dealt with you. — JerseyFlight

Don't take this the wrong way, but it seems like you really get emotional about theism and post quite a lot about it. I don't think your fellow atheists would appreciate that, would they?

Problem is, too, you seemingly can't get out of your own way LOL.

(Put in a quarter and try again!)

This is yet more evidence that you troll threads to project your anger towards
Theism. Dude, slay your Gilligan's!!!

Philosophim's right. Once again, he's aware of it too. Not to mention his telling quote that, oddly enough, describes you:

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

But philosophy is not "the love of sentiment" it is the "the love of wisdom". — Philosophim

Ahh, but what moves wisdom forward? Wisdom itself? How is wisdom advanced, and for what purpose? Something beyond pure reason, you think? Please share your thoughts. Those answers are important.

Within philosophy, love is not illogical, unless it has been proven to be illogical. — Philosophim

Illogical: lacking sense or clear, sound reasoning. That's of course a generic definition from
Webster's. And that's also sort of a segue to love. Is love itself considered sound reasoning? And as you suggested, in passing, how does one prove it's illogical? What is considered love's means and methods? Are they transcendent in some way? (Sorry for the questions, just putting some metaphysical thoughts out there... .)

Now Philosophim, what I thought you were going to respond with is a clear distinction between a priori and a posterior kinds of logic, all in order to distinguish the limitations of each. But I see you didn't go there. However, in the context of our discussion of logical impossibility, which is based upon a priori deductive reasoning, the question relates to how can consciousness be explained through deduction. That's the specific question (for you). And that's the other important question.

So if there was a new thread, it would be called something like: What are the limits of deductive reasoning (and logical impossibility).

Yep, point well taken! Most think there was a continuum of expansion. Others are not so sure:

https://www.livescience.com/65254-what-happened-before-big-big.html

. (@3017amen - this seems like a good moment for you to chime in...) — Possibility

Well, I suppose one thought, of many, would be the so-called significance, or the philosophy behind the creation of that reality show 'Naked and Afraid' (?)

Anyway, I completed a 15-years in the making thought-experiment last summer, and to make a long story long, here's my story:

As a kind of qualifier to the OP, when I was a child, I remember how the actual thought of being naked seemed particularly disconcerting and somewhat shameful viz a grade school discussion that I had with a fellow classmate. He had told me that his parents came to wake him every morning naked. To me, I was very uncomfortable with his word-picture, yet he seemed perfectly fine with it, almost to the extent that it made me feel like I was the one, with the weird 'hang-up' instead of him. When the subject of nudity comes up, I usually always remember that little encounter.

Anyway, after that first discussion and realization of feeling a bit shameful or at least self conscious about my body, along with discussing other people's nakedness, now as an adult I seemed to have adjusted quite nicely to my birthday suit attire by taking care of my body (not that that's a prerequisite to feeling good about your body) by working out and keeping myself fit. Whether it was the experience of being a lifeguard/fitness center, or personal experiences out on my boat or in the hot-tub or pool (naked), I began to embrace my so-called nakedness by feeling more comfortable with it.

Accordingly, my first time sunbathing in the buff was by sheer happenstance during a day where it was so very hot and humid. While boating in broad daylight, I became so adversely uncomfortable to where out of frustration, I hastily tore-off my swimsuit to find relief from the heat. I must tell you, words cannot describe the liberating feeling I had when I subsequently jumped into the water, looked around at my beautiful surroundings (including my ex-wife) and felt like God came 'down from the heavens' as it were, to say that it was all ok, relax. It felt like the old movie Blue Lagoon with Brook Shields (sorry Brook). Wow, it was a euphoric feeling seemingly being caused by a phenomenon between my perception of nature and my vulnerability in it.

As the years went by, after I became single again, and while still enjoying nude sunbathing, an idea popped into my head about seeing what it would be like to experience a nudist colony. I reached out to a local place (they are much like campgrounds, with pools, clubhouses, activity centers, cottages, golf carts, etc.) and inquired about protocol. After the gentlemen described the rules, I said I would see him soon. Well, it never happened. I was scared or at least not ready. But I was intrigued with the entire thought process of how I would react to seeing other people vulnerable and naked, along with how my own thoughts and perceptions of it could somehow change me, and how I would be able embrace the whole experience. Could I handle that? Thus my thought-experiment.

I thought to myself, how would my normal abilities of social interaction be impacted by such a daunting experience? Would I be scared and become self conscious and uncomfortable, or would I embrace my natural way of being along with nature itself, and discover a sense of normalcy in my interactions with others? Or, would it become a sort of erotic sojourn where I would have to find a private moment to take care of my business?

Well, after that first phone call of inquiry, ironically enough, I started to have discussions about this particular Colony with other women who had visited and then shared their experiences. One was a social media friend (very attractive young woman) who went there regularly, while a few others told me it was a 'once and done' ordeal with their girlfriends. And so this intrigue never seemed to go away, until, last year.

And so I decided to go to the 'colony' by myself over a fourth of July holiday, and put my 'thought experiment' into action. Driving up to the place was like entering a medium security compound. I was nervous. Once I drove past the security gates and figured out where to check-in, I knew there was no turning back. There I was, filling out forms and exchanging personal information at the desk (driver license, etc.) all the while I'm clothed and men and women are naked looking at me. Needless to say my heart was racing. After I was advised of all the necessary protocols, I walked over to the clubhouse to disrobe and join the festivities at the swimming pool. Mind you, there was no alcohol allowed, and there were some families with children.

After the first 5-minutes of shock and awe, I actually seemed to calm down enough to start conversation with some men but mostly women. Before I knew it, I was my old self, interacting in a normal way and engaging with a smile, along with having light philosophical discussion about nudity itself along with some other lighthearted banter and otherwise normal conversation. I met so many 'normal people' who were quite experienced with other 'colonies' from around the country. It was intriguing. (Now did Mr. Happy get a little happy at times; you betcha. But I had a little white towel over Mr. Happy when I was sunbathing.)

Though I've never visited Europe and topless beaches, I kind of got a taste of what that experience might be like. To tell you the truth, looking back, it was really no big deal. It almost became like an experience you might have in a co-ed locker room where you just felt pretty much normal. I felt like I had successfully completed the thought-experiment by putting this idea into action. I'm glad I did it. My takeaway's were worth it. I experienced something within myself that I really can't describe. I dealt with my fears. Perhaps philosophically, you could say I had a type of religious experience, where I was with people who were equally as vulnerable and had no 'façade' to hide their own sense of truth. Accordingly, it became my truth and my truth only; a subjective truth. Yet I felt like in some ways, we were all in this together, exposing our vulnerability with each other. It was like we were liberated from our fears, and we somehow knew we had achieved something together. We were joyful in our nakedness.

The only strange thing that happened following that experience was that for about 2-weeks after, when I would see other people walking around in their everyday attire, it was as if I had x-ray vision. I cannot explain it, but everyone I saw, my mind was telling me..' yep, I know what you look like without clothes' . What a bizarre feeling.

What is my theory behind the necessity of clothing? To be continued...

There are a lot of concerns I have with your thinking. Other than your point about having a lack of understanding (finitude) which of course I agree with, I believe you are unfortunately repeating old paradigms that I seem to recognize as a far-right fundamentalist ideology. I hope I'm wrong there

I don't want to hijack this particular thread however, I would welcome another thread if you want to discuss those 'ethical' concerns further (purpose, meaning, causation, will, and so forth).

If you like I will ague that from our thinking, and sensory perceptions, we have contradictory, illogical components to them. Whether it's the illusion and paradox of time; the phenomenon of love, dialectic versus binary thinking, a priori vs. a posteriori logic, etc., our disposition is to dichotomize and chose either/or rather than integrate those opposites of illogical contradiction, as naturally occurring in nature. And when recognized properly, leads to confirmation, (at the very least) that something else is in control that is indeed counterintuitive.

We can start by parsing the phenomenon of love relative to the human condition, as it has been perceived and understood from various disciplines. We know that love itself is a mystery, but we also know that acts of love can transcend pure reason (the a priori). And finally, we know that love is both a subjective and objective truth: not either/or.

You can start the thread with whatever argument you feel the strongest about...

Hello Jack. I would strongly suggest you start a new thread concerning your sojourn. (There may be others here who can better identify with your concerns.)

However if you want to offer a theory relative to the importance of one's own aesthetics, and the resulting impacts from our perceptions of one another, then you're more than welcome to elucidate same.

far as I can tell, the only mathematical concept applicable to god is infinity. Time, to my understanding, has to do with real numbers and while real numbers are a bigger infinity than naturals there are infinities bigger than reals and then there are infinities bigger than those infinities and so on. Quite naturally god as an infinite being must be this infinite progression of infinities and since time is only as big as the infinity of reals, it must be that god can't be contained in time - god's timeless.
1h — TheMadFool

Are you thinking that say, if metaphysical abstracts like mathematical truth's, are necessary to describe the rational laws of the universe, then a necessary God of similar abstract truth is logically possible? Mind you, all of that (that judgement) is based on deductive reasoning, including math itself, being a priori.

Or saying it another way, if mathematical truth's are timeless and eternal, how can we link it to the concept of God? And maybe the more important concept is whether or not mathematics have an independent existence or are invented by us, it is an a priori truth nonetheless.

God being changeless means that these attributes that define god don't change, no matter what. — TheMadFool

Sure. We can discuss a priori concepts of God.

Firstly, would you like to make an argument relative to the effectiveness of mathematical truths viz the concept of a timeless God?

Importance’ is neither necessary nor inescapable. You’re quick to dismiss the possibility that clothing is optional. I could get into a long, drawn out discussion arguing that the cultural standard against nakedness is mythologised in Genesis as emerging from ignorant human judgement, but that’ll take us way off track. — Possibility

Possibility!

I'll come back to your other points but I feel compelled to underscore your foregoing quote.

It was not my intention to dismiss our so-called facade argument. Quite honestly I would welcome another thread that captures this phenomenon. The reason is because not only was I going to elucidate the same argument, but it has personal relevance in the spirit of putting theory into practice. I'll share more of the experience when you open another thread. The thesis consists of a thought experiment being put into practice by virtue of experiencing a visit to a nudist colony.

Accordingly, the pragmatic's of that experiment yielded some insights from both a philosophical as well as cognitive perspective. Much like this thread, a new thread might uncover some intrigue vis-a-vis human nature.

What do you think?

He was driving? — substantivalism

Yes because his obituary was noted in the media.

Logically impossible to investigate fully not to explain. — substantivalism

No. Logically impossible to explain.

Experience and our thoughts exist so what is it that does and doesn't exist? — substantivalism

Consciousness exists but it's logically impossible to explain. In the context of an attribute that transcends formal logic, Jesus also had attributes that were logically impossible to explain.

So because you were dreaming you were then not in fact actually driving. — substantivalism

He was driving and dreaming and unwillfully killed himself.

You were dreaming and not driving. . . remember a limp body un-respondent to external stimuli holding onto a steering wheel in a moving hunk of metal wouldn't be readily intuitively defined as driving a car. — substantivalism

He was not driving, he was on a beach, but happened to be driving.

It seems that your issues are more a priori than they are phenomenological.







.

Ok, I think the issue here is your use of logic can I think be replaced by "knowledge". Its not that consciousness is illogical, its that we don't fully understand how it works. Consciousness is logical, because it exists. If consciousness both existed, and did not exist, then it would be illogical.

Saying something exists does not necessitate that we explain why or how it exists. It is only illogical if its existence would contradict something that we already know must exist. Something can be true, and something can be false. But if A != B, both A and B cannot be true. That's all logic is. Its just a recognition of impossibility in one's conclusions. — Philosophim

I'm not with you on that one. Consider the liar's paradox. The only way out (or at least one way out) is paraconsistent logic making it both true and false. But that's not the axiom for logical impossibility because under those rules, it can't be both. The proposition that he was driving and not driving is logically impossible since we know under those rules it cannot be both (at the same time and same respect). Yet your consciousness allows for that. In other words, there are multiple truth values that contradict each other. (You can apply the same rules to omni-3, ontological, and cosmological propositions because they are a priori modal/formal logic/deductive reasoning.)

To this end, I was dreaming about sitting on the beach=one truth value. I was driving my car=another truth value. I had two completely different perceptions of reality seemingly at the same time because my body was still driving somehow while at the beach. As far as I was concerned, I was not driving at all, yet in reality, I was in fact driving. So while my mind told me I was at the beach, it wasn't really true at all, it was an illusion (kind of like time---another analogy altogether). My mind tricked me because the reality of me dreaming about the beach instead of driving caused me to crash and kill myself without my knowledge and awareness of driving. I had no control over this stream of consciousness; the conscious, subconscious and unconscious phenomenon.

The point to all this is, formal logic is not suited for explaining the nature of existence, the things-in-themselves, unexplained phenomena (and otherwise simply living life a posteriori).

But when you claim its illogical, what you are saying is that consciousness both exists, and does not exist — Philosophim

That's correct. It can't be explained using deduction. and so it transcends logic. Under the rules based on a priori propositional logic, it becomes logically impossible. I didn't invent the rules.

If you state instead, "there are attributes that we do not yet, or may never fully understand", I think you'll find a lot more reception to your ideas. — Philosophim

That's the point Philosophim. When someone says they don't understand something, one should use the rules of logic and reason to parse the statement in order to determine it's truth value. The concept of God a priori (deductive logic) is no different. It is very obvious that finitude exists, and for that very reason, we have said other concepts such as paradox, contradiction, logicall impossibility, etc. also exist as a result of that same sense of ignorance. Otherwise, why do those concepts exist?

Thank you for the well wishes Philosophim, I hope you have a wonderful weekend. We can continue the discussion next week. I want to try and see if you can get out of your confort zone and perhaps embrace the notion of illogical existence, and what that really means.

I'll leave you with a light hearted quote from pragmatist William James: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation. There is in the living act of perception always something that glimmers and twinkles and will not be caught, and for which reflection comes too late."

It may appear necessary to you, but I understand that this is a choice I make freely, for my own reasons. There is nothing ‘necessary’ about it. It’s important to me in that situation, but I don’t agree that it’s necessarily important to everyone in every situation. — Possibility

Of course I disagree. Consider the necessity of clothing. That 'facade' is as necessary as your example of 'dressing for success' because people consider appearance relevant. And so we are back to the inescapable importance of the physical object itself.

Our approach should not be to judge an apparent choice to be manipulated, nor to assume ignorance of alternatives - rather it should be to share our own positive experience of perceiving this broader potential in them. — Possibility

Of course. But you're being too idealist and not realistic. In the real world, one cares about their appearance not only for health and beauty reasons (aesthetics) etc, but because it's appropriate in all of society.

Think of it this way, it may make you feel better if a company has no professional dress code, yet the paradox of whatever standard that's endorsed or approved is nevertheless still a standard that's accepted. It's not that no clothing at all is used to cover the physical body (your 'facade'). That standard is called a dress code appearance standard. You know, customary physical appearance kinds of things, like the requirement to wear cloths and cover or adorn the object in an aesthetically pleasing way.

There are apparent features that I find particularly desirable, yes - but that’s not aesthetic experience. The first moment of aesthetics distinguishes a disinterested character of feeling from a subjective interest in sensory appearance. This is a judgement of the agreeable: You’re not claiming that everyone ought to prefer dark haired Asian women - only that you do (at the moment). — Possibility

Agree. That's tantamount to the will to be, that just is. Or a subjective preference that's unique to the individual which in turn should be discovered and celebrated. The innate preference of the Will is uncovered (predisposition toward Asian women for example), then discovered through apperception of the physical subject-object, you. There is still no escape from the object itself needing to be perceived.

You don’t need to justify your likes or dislikes to anyone - but nor do you need to state them as a definition or essence of your existence, because they’re not, even as they are an example of who you can be. You are not necessarily defined by what you will except in that fleeting moment of action - and it is this indeterminacy that we can recognise (and love), with disinterested pleasure, in every human being, not just those whose sensory appearance we find it pleasing to interact with. Pure beauty/sublimity lies in the inherent unpredictability of appearance - also referred to as ‘fascinating’. — Possibility

That's right. And I don't. And neither should you, or anyone else. It just is---it is what it is, as they say. It is unique to the individual just like our other unique talents, skills and attributes that one might have. Once again, they are to be appreciated and celebrated for what they are. And they should be sought after and nurtured as intrinsic needs to achieve some end goal. The object is both the means, and the means to the end. But without the object itself, you have no means or way of achieving the end goal, which is that goal of Eros and passionate romantic Love. I say love the object for what it is, whether it's beautiful or ugly, it's still an object. That's been my thesis throughout.

As you noted in your thoughts about Thomism, that was my philosophical takeaway from your Lisa Barret's 'psychology' where she puts concepts first. And of course, the opposite is Voluntarism.

Nothing can transcend logic, because logic arrives from one undeniable fact. What is logical, is what exists. If God exists, then God existing is logical. If God exists, it is our descriptions about God that must be logical. Just because we might have some incorrect descriptors, does not deny God's existence. — Philosophim

Philosophim!

Consider that logic cannot explain the true nature of consciousness (we cannot create or design consciousness from nothing/something; we can only make babies that replicate it). And consider that logic cannot fully explain the universe (ToE). And if we have a conscious existence that is beyond logical explanation, there must be something that goes beyond the natural realm of explanation, hence, transcendence. We can describe things using logic and math (the speed of neurons/electrons/photons, laws of gravity, engineering formulas, and so on), but we cannot explain the true nature of existing things-in-themselves. As Kant might argue, that which is beyond logic, is either phenomenal and/or metaphysical.

Of course, easy examples of phenomena/metaphysics is the feeling and perceptions of colors, of love, of music, of mathematics, of time, etc.. All of those things that we perceive, like time, are not materially objective phenomena. In fact, the metaphysics of time perception, as we know from relativity and time travel, presents a sense of illusion and unresolved paradox. Logically, among other things, those are our descriptors of it.

So if we say God is both timeless and in time, it is our definitions that we must take care of. Kind of like the car situation. Its just a problem with us using general descriptors that aren't quite the same. — Philosophim

Of course. And those general descriptors are concepts like: contradiction, paradox, logically impossible, logical possibility, super-natural, transcendence, et al. Those descriptors in themselves are descriptors for a reason. Consider a different set of axioms or truth's in a world that did not have those existing descriptors from the languages describing their reality. In principal, in a different world, you would have a slightly different set of descriptors, presumably. In layman's terms, 'the problem' as you say, is ignorance/incomplete knowledge about things-in-themselves; the nature of our existence.

Alternatively, in theoretical physics, we do have theories that posit a dipolar God that fits into the notion of logical possibility. So sure, I can agree with you there to that extent.

When you say God is timeless, you can say, "God is the origin. There was nothing before God. So God did not form by time, but was the beginning of time. God of course then is still involved in time. Time is not a substance, it is simply the observation that objects have a set relational position at one moment, then another set relational position at another moment. — Philosophim

No exceptions taken.

Finally, Jesus did not have a consciousness that transcended logic. If Jesus existed, and he had his consciousness, then it is a logical possibility. There is nothing illogical about proposing that Jesus was God expressed as a man, only the difficulty in describing what that would mean, or how to prove such a thing. — Philosophim

Exceptions taken as noted; please see my forgoing response above. The 'proof' lies in consciousness, the thing-in-itself, being logically impossible to explain. And that doesn't preclude meaning of life questions/explanations, which are not limited to other metaphysical phenomena that humans may experience and grapple with.

How are we any better than the animals then? — Philosophim

Self-awareness.

So for example, we say God is omniscient, omnibenevent, and all the omnis, we are stating these things to convey that the power, goodness, and knowledge of God are so great in comparison to ourselves, we are insignificant. It is to evoke awe. They are not intended as logical arguments. — Philosophim

Agreed. Hence your sense of poetry. But no worries; metaphor, allegory, poetry and analogy has existed throughout ancient history as yet another form of metaphysical language, all to achieve another means to an end. Accordingly, our descriptors for the beginning and end, are beyond logic.

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? Of course silly. — JerseyFlight

I'm not sure your fellow atheist's would approve of your behavior :chin:

Gotcha indeed you're on a fishing expedition!
LOL

This depends on what you mean by God? It also depends on how you go about trying to deduce him. — JerseyFlight

Unfortunately, I'm still not following your logic .

First you evaded the questions with questions so that tells us something right there.

Second it sounds like you're more of an agnostic than an atheist because if I'm reading between the tea leaves...you don't seem to even know what logic you based your Atheism on... . In other words, what level of understanding do you base your believe in no-God?

So right now, this is actually worse than I thought because it sounds like you are some sort of an in- the-closet agnostic.

Gosh please don't take this the wrong way but it sounds like you're talking about yourself. No matter, let's go ahead and put your money where your mouth is and parse the following a priori statements:

1. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else?

2. Jesus had a consciousness that in itself transcends logic. True false or something else?

Since you seem to be hell-bent on embracing a priori reasoning, tell us what's wrong with those statements or judgements.

am indeed, but we already knew that from the beginning. It's always been the reason for your evasion.
now — JerseyFlight

Not following that. I thought I already answered your question, no?

Yep correct

But you're using deductive logic to determine your 'lack of evidence' belief system. And if I'm correct, you are no better or worse than the theist.

So you just seem to be projecting anger from some unresolved psychological deficiency. (I'm afraid I'm not the only one who sees it.)

if existence is dependent on the passage of time then could anything have qualities that reside beyond the relevance of time? I doubt it. — Benj96

Benj!

Keep in mind that if the prevailing Big Bang theory is correct, then it follows that something outside of time created temporal time itself. And of course, that's all within the context of creation xnihilo. Perhaps you are thinking that time always existed in some way shape or form...

What's that, you said there is no evidence for your idea of God? I didn't quite catch that deductive part. — JerseyFlight

You attacked deductive reasoning from the OP, yet it appears to be the same reasoning you use for your belief in no God.

Excuse me, did you just try to claim that your Jesus Cult is responsible for deductive logic??????????
now — JerseyFlight

No, I'm claiming that you use deduction for your belief in no God.

You try to uphold an archaic tradition that is responsible for some of the worst acts ever committed against humans, I — JerseyFlight

Well that archaic tradition is the same tradition that you seem to use, in this case: deductive logic.

Furthermore, just because you had some bad experiences that you can't resolve don't project your anger onto other people.

Hey dingbat. Encourage more supernatural abstractors like Mutakalem will you, so we can have more important threads like this. Know your enemy friend, and don't encourage their stupidity or propaganda. I blame you for the existence of this thread. You are responsible. And what exactly are you responsible for, authoritarian, fascist nonsense like this: — JerseyFlight

Yo dude, have you thought about an anger management course? Or maybe it's that whole New Jersey Guido thing relative to your ego that philosophim talked about...

ridiculous excuse to try to justify your desire to be mean to people. You can be intelligent, thoughtful, and respectful of others. You don't care about changing his mind. You're spitting words for the fullfillment of your ego. People who actually wish to change others minds understand that you must talk with people, not at people.

You did not talk with the man. You talked at the man, while completing disregarding his OP. You fool no one with this excuse. And if you've fooled yourself? Then you are far less intelligent then you believe yourself to be. — Philosophim

Yep. Nothing new under the sun there!!

Unfortunately yet another angry atheist on the warpath... . I still can't figure out why they're so angry about no-God ... LOL

I blame you for the existence of this thread. — JerseyFlight

Blame yourself for relying on deductive reasoning for your belief in no God. :chin:

Sure thing. I would recommend a short cut, and go straight to how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible. From there you will find a treasure trove of philosophical information that will lead you to, perhaps at some point, back to Jung and his psychology. Personally, Jung, Maslow and William James influenced my thinking quite a bit there, along with Kant's philosophy of course... . In our context of experiencing Love, I think one of the key takeaway concepts for all is Phenomenology.

I suppose one could say that the concepts presented in your argument is another version of the infamous Ontological argument(s). The funny thing is (another irony), most atheists try to rely on a priori logico-deductive reasoning to justify their belief in no-God, which is the same type of logic used for your argument. :snicker:

(So if they give you any grief, just ask them what kind of logic they use... .)

Welcome Jack!

After reading your posts, please feel free to share how important your physical makeup ( and other's) is to the phenomenon of Love, Eros, Romanticism, well-being, aesthetics, et al.

You assert that a physical aspect of interaction is necessary to an experience of Love - I disagree. That’s all. Nothing needs to actually occur, nor physically exist, for Love to exist as part of an experience. That something often does occur, or is observable/measurable, is not denied by, nor does it preclude, my position. — Possibility

1. Possibility believes that the physical aspect of interaction is not necessary for Love. True, false, or something else?

2. Possibility believes Love exists without anything occurring, or physically existing, for the self-actuality of Love, as part of an experience. True, false, or something else?

If they are both true, am I to conclude that somehow Love exists as an innate metaphysical feature of consciousness? And if so, does that not give the metaphysical Will primacy? And if all that is accurate, does it follow that one requires apperception of a physical object, in order to manifest this metaphysical Will to Love?

If the answer is no to the very last question, then there must be something that is exclusively non-physical from which you can manifest your love towards... ?

In simple terms, if there is no object to perceive, how does or should one manifest their Love? In other words, should I love your love? And if you are exclusively metaphysical, what are you? What does that look like? Using your words, what's the 'experience' involve or consist of?

I think the di-polar picture of God with a primordial and a consequent nature found in Whitehead and in process theology is one notion of God worthy of some consideration and discussion in philosophy of religion — prothero

Nice!

In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here. — EricH

Really, are you sure?

Well, the history of Poetry itself is quite intriguing, as you may know. It dates all the way back to Africa and what they call the 'pyramid texts' written, I think, back somewhere around the 25th Century BC. As you could imagine, much of those texts were religious in genre (as there are many genre's today in Poetry) and captured the emotion of the time. For example, dealing with death rituals; the afterlife, tombs, mummy's, you know ancient Egyptian kinds of things. And much like this emotional discussion, life and death can be quite an existential sojourn.

However, we are not talking about emotion, we're talking a priori logic. And so to that end, try to parse these propositions:

1. He was driving and not driving. True or false or something else?

2. God is time dependent and timeless. True or false or something else? [as it relates to this thread/Cosmology]

3. Jesus had a consciousness that transcends logic. True false or something else?

I think they all have to do with some form of Ontology, but am not sure.

Do you understand my question about controlling being defined as conscious or unconscious being key to the issue? It is thus. If you define controlling as conscious, then the moment a person controls unconsciously, they are no longer in control, and not driving. Thus their death was due to a lack of driving on their part. — Philosophim

Philosophim!

Thank you kindly as I indeed have mutual respect. There are a lot of angry atheists on this site so I take it with a grain of salt and just have fun with them.

But I think you're missing the point. I perceived being on the Beach surfing or in some other place and not driving, while at the same time driving. All I knew is that I was at the beach in the beautiful sunlight enjoying myself. Yet simultaneously driving a vehicle. There are multiple truth values associated with my perception from my consciousness.

Although your argument his very intriguing and deserves another thread... , since consciousness itself has yet to be fully explained.

But, as with most logico deductive arguments/propositions (a priori formal logic/logical impossibilities), it's all about words, language, semantics, etc., hence:

He was driving and not driving or, He was kind of driving.

It's either true or false. It can't be both true and false at the same time, otherwise, it's considered logically impossible.

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, 3017amen? — jorndoe

1. He was driving and not driving.

True or false or contradiction?

By George, I think you're onto something!

He seems to be quite mysterious :smile:

Oh gotcha. Okay.

1. He was driving and not driving.

True or false?