I would point you to Hume, who has pretty convincingly argued that we don't actually have a way to prove causality exists. — Echarmion

I haven't studied enough of Hume to know the answer to this question, do you know what Hume said about logical necessity?

The reason I ask is that I wanted to interject an important distinction. While personally I'm not a big fan of logical necessity there is certainly analogous merits to it viz physics. For example, logical necessity is based on formal logic, which in essence, is mathematics. Mathematics describes (not explains the nature thereof) the universe fairly well, as we know.

Generally from there, philosophically, if we are back to Platonic realms of unchanging, eternal, ideas that are seemingly logically necessary, just like unchanging, eternal, mathematical truth's (axioms) and ideas, what are its implications (?).

And so I'm thinking that if someone posits a first cause because something exists (versus nothing exists), they could perhaps simply argue that it just is. I know it's old-school, but it's a source of much debate.

Again, there are a lot of problems with that, which likewise I mentioned to the OP previously. But until mathematic's can arrive at a complete theory of everything, it does hold some merit in and of itself.

What's your take?

EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — EricH

I'm not following that:

Definition- the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

EricH - You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is. — EricH

A conscious being; Jesus.

The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.
10h — EricH

Refer to above. In Christianity, Jesus was known as a conscious being to be part man and part God.

LOL! This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist! Sorry for the redundancy, were you able to understand Frank's belief in Agnosticism?

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... .

You aren't daydreaming and not daydreaming as that would be contradictory but here you are one, not the other, and this negligence lends itself to having the hunk of metal you're within glide uninhibited towards something. — substantivalism

Think of it this way, you're driving and not driving because whichever mind was involuntary causing you to daydream took over and caused you to crash and kill yourself. In other words, you're driving and not driving at the same time because a mysterious part of you took over.

Otherwise, think about how that consciousness phenomena is logically possible?

human being who may have deserved the label of Jesus may have existed. Most of the story regarding said individual is polluted by tall tales so it's hard to tell where the real Jesus may be and where he isn't. . . start with the Jefferson Bible. — substantivalism

Nice!

You'll have to give a link to their definition of god or get them on the forum personally to elaborate on their position. — substantivalism

We would have to defer to text books or otherwise written communication/information which I'm not sure you're convinced represents any type of authority.

No one can know what these thoughts are or what gives rise to them fully and without the danger of skepticism only through an acceptance that they are just the way they are (and a pragmatic/epistemological methodology) on our relationship to them can we then begin constructing abstract relationships or developing deeper concepts. — substantivalism

Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence?

So wait despite all our talk about not understanding ourselves or reality as we know it you appeal to cognitive science? So you do actually follow scientific practice or do you just throw it out? I thought you were anti-materialism or anti-objectivism now were talking about whether these brains have anything to do with consciousness (as they starkly do) but you haven't exactly made this clear before. — substantivalism

Sure I appeal to science for many things, including empirical data. As such, science has concluded that more or less you don't know the nature of your own existence which is what we're talking about. So until you can prove to me how you exist (the nature of your existence), then we can have a cogent discussion about someone else's existence. Otherwise we're back to learning about people from history books. Make sense?

Did he actually perform miracles or was he made by this god of yours but rather come about by conception as we all know it. . . rather unlikely if not perhaps impossible. Also not warranted by the evidence. — substantivalism

That's an important distinction that goes back to your own illogical existence. For example how does the conscious and subconscious mind work together? The infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and crashing and killing yourself, lends itself to violation of formal rules of logic (LEM) perception of two things at once. And so using our sense of logic, basically means that consciousness is an impossibility. Or said another way, consciousness itself is logically impossible.

I go back to you explaining the nature of your own existence. Did it emerge from a warm pool of soup or a piece of wood or some other means or method? Until you can do that, what's the point in trying to understand someone else's existence? It seems to be like blind leading the blind, no? Otherwise you can talk about the creation of physical matter, but how would that explain the nature of your existence?

I cannot tell you the nature of existence in the same sense that you cannot tell me the nature of yours at best the only philosophy you should hold to here is not a metaphysical but an epistemological pragmatic idealism. We cannot know what the thoughts in themselves (or what give rise to them) are truly only what they can do, what they've done, and our relationship to them (taken all rather vaguely). — substantivalism

I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery.

Yes. I understand what Davies was talking about : that whatever G*D is, it must be responsible for both Good and Evil — Gnomon

Gnomon!

Oh I see. Actually I'm not familiar with his views on Good and Evil. Where could I find that?

What I was actually referring to, was his views concerning cosmology. The concept of a dipolar God combines necessity and contingency chance and choice. A traditional unchanging Being who is part of time (temporal time) but also timeless and eternal.

Quantum uncertainty and Wheeler's cloud are the analogies he uses. These ideas challenge the old school God omni-x3-stuff ( I don't accept Anselm's theory the Church adopted/forces on Christianity ) in favor of Process Philosophy/Theology.

yes, but when a person talks about George Washington in the U.S. they probably are talking about the person who was the first U.S. president. — substantivalism

Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that?

It is what it is when they have actually defined it and aren't talking about the concept of god but about god itself. . . after having defined it. — substantivalism

Okay.. So, how did they define it?

You are aware of something you call the self. We call this experience awareness. Is it false that I call it awareness, is that subjective? — substantivalism

It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence.

Are ineffable 'religious' experiences consistent with experiences of waking experiences and are not merely our imagined caricatures of existence. Can you support that a person is having said experience and that such an experience is not the same as a mirage of water in the distance but the experience of concretely water in the distance. Can you not assume unexplained is equivalent to "you know the answer" or that we just suppose it exists without reduction/deeper ontological relations to other entities. We've both admitted partially that part of what makes up conscious awareness, experiences, don't come from within us and we have no knowledge of making ourselves so clearly the reality that either makes us up or gives rise to our experiences must allow for said conscious awareness. — substantivalism

I'm not following that at all really. You may want to study William James and Maslow and others from cognitive science. They did some pretty intense studies of patients having such experiences that include ineffable phenomena. There are also studies on NDE's but that's a different subject matter all together.

Yes, a historian would know the difference between the human character of Jesus and the mythological character of Jesus who was created by ____insert well defined answer____. Was this historian ever born. . . then he interacted with people in a way distinct from fictional characters. . . then he wasn't fictional. Or if you are not assuming this but merely questioning my outward speculation as to whether he is or isn't fictional. . . well that is unfalsifiable by definition as he has never interacted with anyone so it's indeterminate whether he ever existed at all, to me or anyone else it would be "I don't know" as the final answer to that. — substantivalism

Okay, so I think from what you're saying there you agree that history is pretty accurate and Historians pretty much do a good job no?

You have to prove that Jesus is part god not repeat what the bible says he was perhaps even as proof (that's circular). Also define god. — substantivalism

As I said earlier, if you can prove to me the nature of your own existence, then much more of your questions/concerns can be answered.


.

Gosh Frank, they're getting unhinged. I kind of feel sorry for some of them, but hey, it's of their own doing. I think it's called volitional existence. I suppose using Christian philosophy (once again), it's really 'nothing new under the sun' as it were (Ecclesiastes/Existentialism)!!!

Have a good weekend brother!

I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy. — 3017amenYou do not know what you're talking about — tim wood

Let's go through each of them one at a time (for simplicity I'll only include one philosopher since there are dozens more):

1. Ethics: Christian ethics
2. Metaphysics: Descartes Metaphysics (to name just only one)
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Immanuel Kant (synthetic a priori knowledge)
6. Political Philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we Trust

I'm sure I missed something, so help me out there Tim!

you go back through this thread and others, you will find many questions to you that you have ignored. I — tim wood

Really, go ahead and show me, I'll be glad to respond. The thing is, it may not be what you want to hear.

then I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too. — tim wood

So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood

LOL. Does that mean hiding behind ad hominem is the preferred approach to the OP's concerns about God? Or, are we back to what Einstein said about fanatical atheism?

Given all your philosophical questions or issues why hold onto christianity at all and not go towards another religion or not possess any religion at all to be central to your philosophy? Why dogmatically assume christianity to be central around which your philosophy is built? — substantivalism

Well, that's a huge question(s). I'll just give you one reason for you to ponder. I enjoy the Revelation that comes with it.

As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No?

I enjoy talking about the concept of God, don't you Tim? I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy.

You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it. — substantivalism

In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there.

Otherwise, as explained earlier, because only you yourself only know yourself (because you yourself exist), you have the burden of defining the true nature of yourself. Can you pass that test?

Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus. — substantivalism

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous?

They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god. — substantivalism

God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin:

Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about. — substantivalism

Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... .

Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian? — substantivalism

You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry.

You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such. — substantivalism

And so we may have agreement to where it is in fact true that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind?

You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend. — substantivalism

Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience?

A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person. — substantivalism

Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional?

Or:

Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.

Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence.

What is the self? A symbolic abstraction, a collection of ideas. — Hippyhead

Nice! I like that. Metaphysical abstracts are alive and well! For example, the language of mathematics that describe (not explain) the cosmos is indeed a truth, yet abstract!!!

Yep, it also speaks to the concept of a Dipolar God (via physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God).

Cognitively though, it's definately worth mentioning the dangers of dichotomizing truth's versus the benefits of integrating them, which of course, is generally a heathier view. And I think you did that a little bit in your blog about subjective/objective truth.

That's kind of what Kant did. He looked at inductive/deductive reasoning and uncovered/discovered that there was even more possibilities in the form of human intuition, which manifested itself through synthetic propositions.

Nice!

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.

Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL

Atheists do not like having agnostics around to debate. They inevitably lose. — Frank Apisa

Yep. There are alot of sore losers (atheists) here on the forum. An issue for cognitive science I know, but I think it has something to do with their ego.

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen
You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular — EricH

It appears you are searching for a straw man argument. What do you mean by circular?

Great analysis! I'll add into the possibility that we will never know if Jesus wrote anything down himself.
Of course he could have, but the Pharisees and Sadducees might have thrown it away :snicker:

There was alot of anger even back then LOL

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist!

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .

He still seems angry Frank LOL

God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — 3017amen
Again, still not a definition. What does the word "that" mean? — EricH

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker.

Probably because you never get past the define your terms phase of the discussion either being intentionally obscure (i've personally now experienced that) or just seemingly refusing to do so post after post. — substantivalism

In Christianity Jesus existed.

Great, an argument from authority or a useless quote mine which isn't a definition of god. — substantivalism

It's useless to those who lack understanding.

particular definition of god with predefined attributes something which you have actually failed to provide on every occasion and I wouldn't ever dare to put you among those respectable apologists/theistic philosophers that make up such a statistic. — substantivalism

So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence?

I know the bible claims that but I want to see you support it. — substantivalism

Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... .

So then, how can you support both historically as well as philosophically that such a thing did occur? — substantivalism

For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.

With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.

In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?

The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply!

I don't know Frank, so far I haven't heard any persuasive arguments from any atheists on this site. I mean I've given them every opportunity to save-face, but it seem as though they got nothing. Oh well, the more things change the more they stay the same. Or in Christian philosophy; nothing new under the sun.

Speaking of [atheists] saving face: “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

or something similar that's irrelevant to their argument, a kind of non sequitur. — jorndoe

Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur?

Do you have a point or are you just trolling?

LOL

Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God.

Sorry for the redundancy, but I think your credibility is highly suspect LOL

those nebulous indeterminate definitions typically put forth by faith apologists (and I think some were posted earlier in this thread) means nihilism? Odd. I doubt that's what they wanted. — jorndoe

What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you...

One more definition...? By all means, add to the ridiculous amount of definitions. :) I wonder how many definitions can be found on this forum alone. Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), your oceanic feelings, that over there :point: , "the great unknown" (or "unknowable"), ghosts of imagined entities, ... What a circus. No wonder there are things like ignosticism. — jorndoe

Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that intriduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL

Tall tales, stories of a Jewish carpenter in Middle Eastern antiquity supernaturally feeding 5000 + 4000 people with a handful of food, magically walking on water and turning water into wine, cursing a fig tree to make it wither, after whose demise there was a zombie outbreak in Jerusalem, ... Taking this stuff to be literal history is where uncritical naïveté gullibility malleability credulity "seeing faces in the clouds" (mentioned by Punshhh) is applicable. — jorndoe

Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction?

I voted Biden mainly as a protest vote to get dumper-trumper out of there (much like many moderate repubs did viz. Hilary). To this end, apparently there are a lot of moderate Republicans supporting the Biden ticket wanting to get back to certain GOP ideals like fiscal restraint and character/leadership/non-racist/non-mysogynist, more honestly, no cheating, flip flops on policy, etc.etc . kinds of ideology.

And/or you can look at it like the lesser of two evils.

The experiment didn't work. When you look at the track record, he's just part of the swamp.

I worry that he's going to run country into the ground with debt similar to his casino's and the university that went bust.... I think he said he was the king of debt during the 2016 campaign. Certainly not a traditional GOP ideal.

You're onto something here. The sentence "God is consciousness" is not a definition - it is a poetic metaphor. — EricH

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas" — EricH

I like mine better because it's more germane than yours : God is a mottled color of Truth.

Now I'm not questioning your faith. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious and I can see how it helps them cope with life's difficulties and gives structure and meaning to their lives. — EricH

Do you mean it has impacts on their conscious existence?

But there is no logic to a belief in god(s) - faith is totally irrational. — EricH

Is the nature of your consciousness itself logical?

Any efforts to give a reasonably coherent explanation of the phrase "God exists" are doomed to failure. — EricH

Really? In Christianity Jesus existed, no?

Could you more specifically define god? What are the properties of it you claim it has? — substantivalism

As I said, I can only infer that the concept of God, having created consciousness, must have super-natural and transcendent capabilities or properties. Kind of the same idea as Kant's transcendentalism. Or as an example, if you prefer the infamous judgement that humans make quite often: all events must have a cause... .

Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science.

Make sense?

You don't seem to know the mind of god because you don't give specifics beyond "it's conscious" but it can also create other conscious beings which I cannot and thusly I don't know if any conscious being could. — substantivalism

No one knows you yourself better than you yourself, right? So, how could someone else know the mind of someone else? What's your point?

discussion about "does ____ exist?" is incoherent and won't go anywhere nor could you take any position much regarding what is supposed to go in the blank but if you could define and specify what does go within the blanks (that is coherent) then we can begin analyzing it or taking bets. Where is your evidence post wise that I went from "god is forever under any discussion completely and utterly incoherent thusly not worthy of discussion" to "it's incoherent to talk about something existing and taking bets on it before understanding what it is as well as whether it even is coherent to discuss its existence". Remember, YOU have to go back into the previous posts with proper context and paste that part of a previous post that says this is what I held or what I defined ignosticism as. — substantivalism

I can define God. God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

And I say 'that which' because I don't know if God has a gender or not. The history book known as the Christian Bible is metaphorical, among other things. Beyond this, if you care to, I would not take any exception to someone claiming God is a concept that presumably is super-natural and transcends logic. (Another reason I like the metaphor of : God is a mottled color of truth.)

...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... .

So god has the ability to create other conscious beings. . . I don't have that ability so that must be something unique to god. . . almost as if you need to note his properties or specifics. — substantivalism

Yes, through inductive reasoning that appears to be the case. Nonetheless, as Frank alluded to earlier ( with atheist 180), only you yourself know yourself, therefore, who knows the mind of God(?).

More like a mis-construral of my position. How can anyone read my posts then ask AFTER you have given a coherent definition of god which I accepted to discuss with you and didn't say any definition of god isn't inherently incoherent, "why is my definition then incoherent to you?". — substantivalism

Okay, but remember, you changed your position on that. It went from, any discussion about God is incoherent, to okay, let's talk about God. Just sayin.

Jesus is human, god is human consciousness, so your saying a human existed that was conscious. — substantivalism

No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus.

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it... — 3017amen
Again, another famous strawman of yours but you just gave a coherent definition of god, god=human consciousness, just that it's an equivocation of terms that doesn't really add much. — substantivalism

How is it straw man?

Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it...

Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that?

Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it?

Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question!