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? — 3017amen
Nice! — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery. — 3017amen
Ok, maybe we'll do that. Could be a plan. Until then, you might keep in mind that nobody is forcing you to focus on "metaphysical baggage" that you don't find credible. If you think it would be fun to transcend the metaphysical claims, you can start transcending when ever you're ready. — Hippyhead
Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that? — 3017amen
Okay.. So, how did they define it? — 3017amen
It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence. — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
Discussion of Christianity on philosophy forums seems hopelessly inept. To read a philosophy forum, one would get the impression that Jesus never mentioned love. All this male ego chest thumping and intricate logic calculation etc, seems pointless. — Hippyhead
Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical. — Frank Apisa
There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous? — 3017amen
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: — 3017amen
Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... . — 3017amen
You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry. — 3017amen
And so we may have agreement to where it is tin fact rue that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind? — 3017amen
Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience? — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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? — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL — 3017amen
I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.
Interesting.
Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language! — Frank Apisa
I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times. — Frank Apisa
As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that. — Frank Apisa
I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.
Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum. — Frank Apisa
No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that. — Frank Apisa
No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.
You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.
Here they are:
1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?
2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)
What would your answers be? — Frank Apisa
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. — 3017amen
Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.
I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread. — Frank Apisa
Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism. — Frank Apisa
I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit. — Frank Apisa
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't. — Frank Apisa
Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical. — Frank Apisa
In Christianity Jesus existed. — 3017amen
So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence? — 3017amen
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... . — 3017amen
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! — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
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 — 3017amen
Is the fact that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God a non sequitur? — 3017amen
What's indeterminate about Jesus existing in history? I'm not following you... — 3017amen
Is that basically another approach or version of hiding behind ad hominem ? Oh, that's right you were the guy that introduced ad hominem into my argument that over 75% of philosophical domains invoke God. LOL — 3017amen
Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen
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... . — 3017amen
Think about why human's utter such things and how universally effective that notion of wonder is viz physical science. — 3017amen
I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.
You are full of shit, Sub.
I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES. — Frank Apisa
When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"
I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.
We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."
But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.
I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment. — Frank Apisa
If you don't know it, then you cannot communicate about it? How 'bout that? — Shawn
Linguistically, it's a universal word for every single being/entity, even for computers. — Shawn
You asked "Does 'it' exist?"
I asked you what you meant by "it."
There was no predicate for the "it."
Still no answer. — Frank Apisa
And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW. — Frank Apisa
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.
...a bit more fodder for you to chew on if you will... . — 3017amen
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(?). — 3017amen
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. — 3017amen
Does what exist?
A god?
Beats the hell out of me. — Frank Apisa
Thanks for that.
Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa
No not entirely. I'm saying God created consciousness through Jesus. — 3017amen
How is it straw man? — 3017amen
Really? I said Jesus was part God and man as recorded in history. What's wrong with that? — 3017amen
First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition." — Frank Apisa
Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word. — Frank Apisa
Are you saying then that your conscious existence is also nonsensical? I don't get it... — 3017amen
Great question. Let's see, it's a mottled color of truth. Does that metaphor speak to it? — 3017amen
Nice!!! See that was easy. Next question! — 3017amen
Sorry, not following that one. — 3017amen
In Christianity, it's Jesus. — 3017amen
It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man. — 3017amen
Oh okay.
God is consciousness. — 3017amen
And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead
I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange. — 3017amen
The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. — Frank Apisa
If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen
A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen
That's correct, and history has recorded same! — 3017amen
"Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless." — Frank Apisa
Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here? — Frank Apisa
I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing. — Frank Apisa
I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense. — Frank Apisa
I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position. — Frank Apisa
I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T. — Frank Apisa
And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen
Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you? — 3017amen
Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown? — 3017amen
It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen
Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?
Does that sound right? — 3017amen
Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said. — 3017amen
I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.
1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?
2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?
I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No? — 3017amen
The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .
Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism? — 3017amen
How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh? — Hippyhead
My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc. — Hippyhead
What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe. — Hippyhead
The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers. — Hippyhead
If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility. — Hippyhead
I didn't say god...I said gods.
I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.
Neither do you.
But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.
You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.
There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question. — Frank Apisa
I've given mine. Here it is again:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.
Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing. — Frank Apisa
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.
No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.
Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.
No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.
The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.
If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is? — Frank Apisa
Yes, most philosophers.
Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic. — Frank Apisa
What are you talking about???
Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is? — Frank Apisa
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. — EricH
I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect. — Hippyhead
Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.
Here is my agnosticism:
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.
I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion. — Frank Apisa
One should first understand what history is, to understand hat history books are, and then one may approach their contents. In any case, the Christian Bible is no history book, nor does any but the fond think it is. — tim wood
The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe. — Hippyhead
You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.
I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.
And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.
"I do not know" makes lots of sense.
"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.
At least, as I see it. — Frank Apisa
You can't expect definitive answers to your questions. Remember that we are in the philosophical field.
Anyway, my answer:
Two types of materialism are often proposed: metaphysical and epistemological. My option is different --although close to the second-- : I defend a materialism without matter. My definition of materialism is based on Wittgenstein's familiy-resemblance. A semantic perspective, at least.
I suggest abandoning the search for something called "matter" and focusing on this question:
What is called "materialism" in the different branches of knowledge?
This leads to energy and mass in physics; to biochemical processes in biology; to the brain and behavior in psychology; to productive forces in history; to empiricism in epistemology.
All these options are similar in that they are opposed to supernatural: God, the spirit, the ideal. In short, materialism is the thesis of a unique world at hand. — David Mo
I don't think we need to break our heads on the definition of "physical". Only recognize that thoughts aren't the same as, say, a pencil or a tree. No matter, how one defines "physical" or its antithesis "immaterial" we won't have a good enough reason to put thoughts in the same category of pencils or trees or brains. That's what I think anyway. What say you? — TheMadFool
The way that the traditional philosophers conceived it was that 'the ideal' was not an experience, as such, but what was 'grasped by the intellect' (where 'intellect' is a translation of the Greek 'nous'.) So in the idealist tradition, the form, idea, or essence of a particular was what made something what it is, and the intellect/nous was what enabled the rational mind to understand the forms, and therefore see the essence of things - to see what things truly are. — Wayfarer
Oh, and one more point. The meaning of ‘substance’ in philosophy is quite different to its meaning in ordinary language. ‘Substatia’ was the Latin term chosen by translators for Aristotle’s ‘ouisia’, a word which in many respects is much nearer to our ‘being’ than ‘stuff’. A ‘substance’ was ‘that in which attributes inhere’ - a classic example being that Socrates is an instance of the substance Man, whose eyes happen to be blue. So ‘being a man’ is the substance, and blueness of the eyes is an attribute. — Wayfarer
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't. — Frank Apisa
"1. There was something before the big bang...
2. There was nothing before the big bang...
— opt-ae
3. There is no "before the big bang".
This last is the view implicit in the very physical theory that deduced the big bang. — Banno
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."
How do YOU define...define?
It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance. — Frank Apisa