It is the equivalent to me having plastic surgery. — Andrew4Handel

. . . and. . . the implication here?

Which is identical to blackface and someone emulating the features of an African. — Andrew4Handel

If i'm understanding the analogy well enough here then this implies that you can't be too feminine as a male and therefore are 'appropriating' woman's identities. This assumes that woman 'own' those mannerism/biological signifiers/behaviors characteristic of them stereotypically or not. That you can 'steal' the identity of being a woman because being a woman is only a woman when a female person does it stereotypically. . . but if you do it stereotypically then it's 'doing it wrong'. Better stay on your gendered field or otherwise you'll be sued for feminine/masculine copyright infringement! Be careful about how you smile or what music you like as that may just be pure 'appropriation'!

So i'm going to use the words male and female to denote having respectively XY/XX chromosomes. I'm using the word women/men to regard the social/cultural categories and all assumed stereotypes or behaviors coincident with those terms colloquially.

No, that's incomplete. Do men dressed in clown suits get rejected from the men's restroom? No. Its not appearance, its based on sex. — Philosophim

Except that isn't what you implied before. . .

If a person disguises themselves well enough to pass and no one notices, then no one will likely care. — Philosophim

So. . . its based on appearance then from which they immediately judge the intentions of the person in question. If they don't 'pass' then and only then is it a problem regardless of whether its a trans-women or mistaking a rather "manly" seeming cis-gendered female for a male. It doesn't matter. The 'uncomfortability' that actually motivates lawful chromosomal divide is based on the fact that. . .

Appearance is how we readily judge another's sex. — Philosophim

Can you attempt to disguise your sex? Yes. Does that change your sex? No. Does that mean that because we can disguise our sex that suddenly it makes it ok? No. Appearance is not your sex. Being able to "pass" does not change your sex. — Philosophim

It does change the point or significance of using it or its utility in a true general sense.

Yes, it does ignore classes, roles and stereotypes. That's gender. The idea that a woman is inferior to a man is gender. The idea that only men can be fire fighters is gender. The idea that men cannot raise children is gender. All of those are subjective stereotypes and quite frankly, discrimination. Gender is not a good or positive thing substantivalism. Its a primitive emotional approach to judging members of the opposite sex on things that have nothing to do with one's actual physical sex. — Philosophim

Being seen as a likely perpetrator or as a statistical risk based off of your 'grouping' is also not based directly on your sex. It's a prior bias. . . assumption. . . stereotype if you will. . . and sex is neither sufficient nor necessary to motivate its presence. Only the action itself or some well founded intention to indulge in it when it's readily present.

Instead of digging into stereotypes by saying that trans people "belong to a certain social club" we should be changing our attitudes about gender stereotyping. Men should be able to wear tasteful dresses in public and we should all be able to treat that man with respect, equal rights, and not derision. A person shouldn't feel like they need to lie that they're the other sex to avoid stereotypes. A short man or tall man shouldn't be bullied. — Philosophim

You know, you are right. So let us agree for the moment with Butler that gender is to be seen as a performance. You aren't pretending to be a man dressed as women. You are you. Identity isn't XX chromosomes or XY chromosomes. . . it's who you 'are' or what you consider your 'self'.

This is why I don't get you throwing gender out the window but yet you still want to keep this sex divide at the forefront. Why? You imply its independent of gender, gender preference, or stereotyping but when it has to do more with presumed intentions based on appearance or uncomfortability then you go outside your tool box.

To help me with our discussion, tell me why someone should cross sex divided places because of gender, over instead simply working on getting people to accept that men and women don't have to conform to gender stereotypes to be men and women? Specific examples please, not general abstracts. — Philosophim

The question is why it should be a dividing line at all WITH a lawful set of consequences that negate some moral intuitions we have on it. Yes, you've already said that laws don't have to be morally guided. . . that does mean they still could be. In the trans-person using the restroom for its purpose example; if they are not being voyeuristic, violent, invading the personal privacy of others within reason, abusive, or intentionally disruptive without reason then it doesn't strike me as something deserving of lawful consequences. They are punished. . . for using a restroom.

The sex distinction makes the above a punishable offence. Which compounds itself upon society as a whole, your intention as well. Which motivates not the dissolution but the cementing of gender stereotyping as now its implied, whether by accident or a desired result, that you can't get society to a point that. . .

A person shouldn't feel like they need to lie that they're the other sex to avoid stereotypes. — Philosophim

Turns out, such stereotyping is seemingly motivating the decision to punish someone who's only action was using the restroom. The motivation being one's 'uncomfortability' which is garnered by societal expectations of how one who is MALE is to be judged on sight or even under a 'disguise'.

Again, you seem to want to agree with me on gender and yet if a person doesn't conform to gendered expectations of their sex then they are still said to be 'doing it wrong'. They are not dressed, 'they are a man dressed as a woman.' They are not a mere individual, 'they are a man or woman.' Male and female don't carry those connotations but they can drag such stereotypes along if you don't explicitly make that clear. On top of the fact that a male person can't pretend to be a female person anymore than I can change by DNA but anything else may be extensively changeable. . . and therefore not 'owned' by the male sex or the 'female' sex.

Again, this is wrong. It is not culturally what it means to be a man or a woman, that's poor grammar. A man or a woman is by sex. Cultural expectations of how a man or a woman should behave, dress, and act apart from the physical sex differences is gender. Saying because I act like a certain expectation that one sex has makes me that sex, is discriminatory behavior. — Philosophim

Then you need to put this canyon divide between, in the terms as i'm using them, what it means to be a man or women as well as accepted among those who ascribe to those labels/categories and male/female.

Nobody should or does act like they have XX chromosomes. As if they mean, "I'm feeling really XX chromosome today." No, they act feminine where this cluster concept may cover the experience/behavior. No one is pretending to be male, they are everything that in the performative definition of gender such a category is meant to imply by a colloquial usage.

Female people don't own facial expressions and externalized forms of certain behavior nor do males as if some one doing something similar is 'stealing' it or some 'cheap copy'. As that assumes, contrary to our assumptions, that gender is in fact strapped to your chromosomal status. That or some weird claim as to all people who are male/female people of being some monolithic ontological entity that 'owns' those features regardless of whether they can be changed.

Ok, then why don't we work on harsher punishment for violations like this, or work on the culture so that members of their own sex will not act negatively towards other based on stereotypes? — Philosophim

That would be a start.

Why is the solution to pretend a stereotype means you now belong in a place of another sex, despite you not being that other sex? — Philosophim

First, sex is not the reason they feel the need to be with the same sex. . . its SIMILARITY. Do I need to quote you again. . .

If a person disguises themselves well enough to pass and no one notices, then no one will likely care. — Philosophim

Go figure. . . so it had everything to do with appearance. Sex is a secondary coincidental fact to one in which similarity is what seems to rule acceptance here.

Sex is a characteristic and it is not a motivational group identification to fall under. If you do that you are now going outside the purview of sex into. . . sociological creations.

Nothing. That's the entire point. Gender is a subjective stereotype of a group or individuals. If it doesn't have to do with physical characteristics, its not sex. — Philosophim

However, the motivation and reason why this choice is made can be heavily influenced by gender.

We don't generally let men or women in the other bathrooms. — Philosophim

Based on appearance, yes.

Being trans has nothing to do with whether you are a man or woman by sex. — Philosophim

Yes, it hasn't anything to do with chromosomes. Only whatever ISN'T chromosomes. . . so everything else. Unless you have a different definition to provide.

Your dress and behavior do not negate your sex or make you special. — Philosophim

Yes to the former. The latter however ignores societal classes, social roles, and stereotypes themselves.

You seem to think how a person acts should trump sex differences. — Philosophim

Well, i'm not privy to biological essentialism and given your extremely broad label painted for the word gender it actually is the case that it does. As it now covers everything that people would feel is relevant to being part of their group such as social roles, social discourse, social etiquette, dress, mannerisms, etc. Even much of the biological elements which can be readily modified. The literal only thing not included are your chromosomes by definition and or any latent biological essentialism that couldn't be 'transitioned' away.

So if it quacks like a duck, acts like a duck, and walks like a duck. Should it better stay away from those other ducks because its DNA doesn't match up?

The above is the impression I get from the defensive position i'm entertaining here. They are talking about bathrooms as spaces in which only "woman" are allowed and the 'sex' element to this is an excuse or cover up for prior assumptions of how transitioned an individual needs to be to then be seen culturally as 'woman/man' enough. Rather like an outcast seeking to be allowed by the best of their efforts into a collective that seeks to outcast them permanently for reasons irrelevant for the significant portion of most individuals as a part of that collective.

Acting like what some people think the opposite sex should act like does not make you the opposite sex. — Philosophim

It could make you similar in every manner that is relevant to most people as to what it means to be culturally/socially a man/woman while not having the right chromosomes still.

We do not divide bathrooms based on how you're dressed. There's a reason why urinals are not in women's restrooms, and its not because men "shouldn't cry". — Philosophim

It's based on your biological appendage then but technically both bathrooms should have toilets that allow for either to use. I prefer them even due to their added privacy of a closed door.

Thus there is no exception for trans individuals, because trans people are people of a particular sex who act or dress differently then their sex's stereotype. — Philosophim

The point I want to emphasize at this stage is how we've treated the bathroom situation. As a couple of the feminist articles i've seen on the issue have showcased and you admitted its about perceived safety among those of similar supposed standing. Its thinking, because we have the same external biology/behavior/chromosomes that we then feel comfortable around you in that vulnerable state. The question then is how much of the first two are needed until suddenly they, as you said before, 'don't feel uncomfortable'? Is there a 'male/female brain' or sense of biological essentialism that dooms any person who tries to avoid those masculine/feminine stereotypes?

You can never be the opposite sex. Its impossible. — Philosophim

If you are talking about chromosomes. . . then yes. If you are talking about societal classes to identify under or be a part of. . . well. . . we are on a philosophy forum.

The question isn't of changing your DNA it's about acceptance and 'passing' in a societal context. Being allowed or given permission among groups of a particular sort. I'm being rather general here.

Why can't a trans person use the bathroom of their own sex? — Philosophim

Uhhh. . . reasons.

Why can they not accept that they are a particular sex, but they like to act like the other sex? — Philosophim

Mostly because of the bare fact that you made in the beginning of this whole discussion. Gender isn't sex. It's fluid and people who have a particular set of chromosomes might just behave contrary to expectations of this biological fact. So, they may desire to be accepted into that grouping irrespective of being held down by their mere chromosome status. This new desire being so great that it motivates them to completely change many aspects of themselves to achieve this goal. Perhaps not too different to changing oneself in certain minor or major ways to gain friends, a romantic partner, or mirror a famous individual.

Why do you desire to be however masculine/feminine of a mix that you are?

I have no problem with a man dressing as a woman, or a woman dressing up like a man. — Philosophim

If gender is separate from or to be mostly dissolved away from sex then it's just dress, stereotype, and. . . lots of varied behaviors.

So to your point then, you need to explain to me why acting like or impersonating the other sex gives you the right to enter areas that are separated by sex. If we don't let non-trans men into women's bathrooms, why should one who acts like a stereotype of one, should? — Philosophim

Look everyone! We finally got to the actual point of this sort of discussion!

The question here is. . . what makes a woman/man that isn't their chromosomes? What behaviors/mannerisms/mental states are 'owned' by women/men?

No. You can have gendered stereotypes and identities formed within any group. — Philosophim

. . . and a group is not your chromosomes so we are off to a good start here.

You can make friends or enemies with anyone. — Philosophim

No specific chromosomes specified or needed in such situations, yeah.

The social dynamics that may result within one particular group do not negate a group's division by sex, period. — Philosophim

It does imply its existence, need, or IDENTITY. Groups are not made in a vacuum. They are made on personal, social, psychological, economic, historical, or on any other particular collection of reasons.

Note, that there is a difference between a mere grouping based one particular characterization (having such and such chromosomes) and a social sense of cohesion. . . which is therefore not your chromosomes. Neither is and the expectations we hold for who can be 'a part' of it may be arbitrary or rather culturally set in stone. Those are the reasons people grasp at in the trans persons in the wrong bathroom discussion where its a talk of gender stereotype, assumed intentions, and toxic cultural identity.

We are talking about division due to physical safety and vulnerability. Anything that forms outside of that is secondary and has nothing to do with a person's sex, or the division of sex that formed this group to begin with. — Philosophim

Am I now extending the definition of sex to include biological factors such as bone structure, muscle physiology, and. . . what else?

Find me the number of cases in which a woman was confused for a man. Its not many. — Philosophim

That is the point of looking for exceptions such as in the case of trans people because this doesn't then become a throw away point but a reality.

Of course there are exceptions. There are always exceptions. General laws are not based on exceptions, but generalities. If you want to carve out subdivision a1 to the rule to ensure exceptions are treated fairly, all good. — Philosophim

So, this whole discussion feels pointless as I could put in an exception for trans individuals as has already been done or will be done.

For example, if the other bathrooms are full, if you have a child under a certain age of that bathroom's sex, etc. There is no general reason to allow cross bathroom attendance. — Philosophim

I've been talking about cross bathroom attendance. . . of trans individuals. Let us be sure to not parrot the myth of advocating for increased sexual predation because we give trans exceptions.

Some laws are not about a person doing something specifically wrong, its about prevention. — Philosophim

Then prevent actual potential harm. . . not a person just using the restroom for its intended purpose. The exception clause you brought up comes back at us again.

Not at all. I didn't bring up passing and not passing, you did. — Philosophim

Well. . . you did say. . .

If a person disguises themselves well enough to pass and no one notices, then no one will likely care. But if someone DOES notice, and it bothers them, they then have the right to ask the person to leave or report them. — Philosophim

That is what 'passing' is.

Doesn't matter if you're passing or not, the law is if you have a biological sex that does not belong in a particular place divided by sex, you don't belong there. Period. Acting or trying to hide one's sex does not give you a pass. — Philosophim

Unless. . . [insert trans exception].

This is not about the way society expects the way for a man or woman to act, this is about the physical interactions that can occur based purely off of sex differences. — Philosophim

. . . and the well-founded as well as supported implied intention to possibly do harm. That trans-exception again, also.

Of course. Its not about the likelihood, Its about the comfort of those feeling like they have a safe space for their sex. — Philosophim

A safe place for themselves. Saying for their sex brings in group identity and goes outside the purview of non-gendered talk about sex. A group identity brings in social identity and cohesion which is related to but not the same as biological sex itself. It's something founded on stereotypes and generalizations especially when contrasting with the opposite sex 'group'.

But when there is a social pattern that's ingrained in a person its less likely to occur. — Philosophim

Exactly, like those laws covering abuse, indecency, etc. That already exist. We can worsen the sentences if they are not up to your liking. Put in more unisex bathrooms? More education on toxic masculine/feminine behaviors in or outside relationships? Mental health improvements in early warning behaviors to be noticed?

If a person disguises themselves well enough to pass and no one notices, then no one will likely care. But if someone DOES notice, and it bothers them, they then have the right to ask the person to leave or report them. — Philosophim

Note that what you said is not actually specific to any correct bathroom usage. Technically, a person could find someone who is fairly masculine but has chromosomes that are XX as rather bothersome as well but we will. . . for some reason. . . curb their uncomfortability under the guise of 'anti-discrimination' if they are in the woman's rest room.

This seems hypocritical. I can imagine perfectly reasonable scenarios involving people's 'discomfort' about being around or having their kids around some transitioned individual who is perhaps as transitioned as could be. . . but in the 'right' restroom in your meaning.

Also, what are they going to report them for? If they were neither abusive nor indecent. Nor were they violent, aggressive, or verbally abusive. Are we going to tell them they used the rest rooms and then left? Are we punishing them for not 'passing' enough?

The argument of division by sex has nothing to do with gender. — Philosophim

The second you brought up 'passing' or not 'passing' you brought up gender. The second you brought up 'discomfort' and therefore indirectly some social acceptance of this behavior also involves. . . gender.

Note that i'm going with the simplest definition afforded to me as to what sex is. Your chromosomes and nothing else. Especially since many other physical features of people on the surface level are or have been suspect to recent easier forms of modification or the realization of the social conventional nature they have. Regardless, I'm sticking with the chromosome definition.

My point is that gender should never be a factor. Gender is a subjective stereotype, an expectation of how a sex should act in a social setting. Dress codes that do not explicitly tie to physical sex (for example, shirts that cover up breasts correctly) should not be enforced. Thus requiring someone to wear a dress, or not wear a dress, should be abolished. Make up or lack of make up should be abolished. Basically society should not enforce behavior or fashion based on physical sex. THAT is old, outdated, and enforcement of stereotypes. — Philosophim

Exactly, gender is only a factor when it is. . . well. . . an actual factor. Not arbitrarily inserted into a decision without relevancy.

All areas that are necessarily tied to sex should never consider gender. Never. Anything that has to deal with nudity should always be separate due to the possibility of one sex being able to force themselves on another's vulnerable position. — Philosophim

There is already the possibility of another forcing themselves on another in that situation right now. There isn't a bouncer, pants checker, or chromosomal identifier at the door of every. . . or possibly any. . . bathroom so there is no way to enforce this. Nor is the possibility of some hormonally unbalanced and crazed abuser going to see the woman's sign on the door then think, "Oh shoot. They got me. Now I can't fulfill my desires because its law that only real woman can enter this bathroom. I guess i'll abuse woman elsewhere in a more public place." On top of the fact that abuse in this respect is already covered under law.

A situation i've never actually seen dwelt with is. . . If a person, dressed as woman and self-proclaimed trans-woman, entered the bathroom. . . with no one else there. . . relieved themselves. . . then left. What are the consequences of that action? What are the legal charges to be brought on that person for relieving themselves in the wrong area? What if someone else was in the room regardless of any minute but irrelevant interaction they had? Would that worsen the charges?

Are we taking legal action against them because we think they are probably an abuser? Are we biased in that respect?

It does all hinge on IF it comes to public/legal light that a person who did enter the bathroom had different anatomical parts or chromosomes. When that does happen, what do we do?

I've seen some interesting arguments on the internet that argue that all transexuals or homosexuals are mere sexual deviants on par with pedophiles as well as ploys to be sexually abusive. I'm sure you can find an article on some man who dressed as a woman is expected and acted as indecent or immorally a manner as possible. Oh look, I found one in Florida!

Women's sports, bathrooms, and shelter's should all be based on biological sex. — Philosophim

Got it. Unisex bathrooms all the way.

Laws should enforce that if a man goes into a male bathroom dressed as a woman, they cannot be harassed or discriminated against. This seems fair and right towards all parties involved. — Philosophim

Sure, although this should already be covered under anti-discrimination laws if it isn't already.

The word "man" and "woman" are not based on gender, they are based on sex. There is no question as to what a man or a woman is. There are no privileges afforded a man or a woman beyond this biological difference. We can say there are stereotypical expectations of men and women's behavior and expression, and many men and women do not fit into those stereotypes. Not fitting into a stereotype doesn't change your sex, period. If a man wants to wear dresses, paint their nails, and act flighty, that's fine. They are still a male that's expressing themselves in a particular way. You can say, "I like a particular gendered idea of the way a woman acts in society, so I'll act that way." There's nothing wrong with that. But you are still a man or a woman because of your sex, not your actions or expressions. — Philosophim

Basically this sums up every single problem that both sides possess in having any sort of dialogue on this sort of discussion. Everybody gets the distinction between gender and sex. If they don't then its no difficulty in educating them on that. The issue is deciding on what matters gender should take the forefront and in what cases sex should.

Bathroom discussions revolve around this a lot where its gender that rules and whether you have the 'correct' internal/sexual anatomy or the right chromosomes isn't how people 'gain access' to such private places. Its passing that matters and not some rigorous identification.

Sports is a different matter and one in which biology takes the forefront. . . UNLESS there is some specific biological characterization (bone structure, hormonal levels, etc) as a way of leveling the playing field that is sufficient enough to allow fruitful and relatively balanced competition. That is something that would have to be argued for as impossible/possible in principle by those educated in sports science.

Social groups, cohesion, and the benefits gained from such matters are another situation of great disagreement.

The question should always be: Is gender or sex the deciding factor in some particular social/political/economic decision? Or to what degree is each characterization to be leveled?

My sense is that only a small portion of the transgender movement consists of people who will genuinely benefit from adopting the label.

A larger portion seems to consist of:
1. people who carry trauma from childhood in which their individuality was not accepted (feminine men, masculine women, homosexuals, lesbians, etc.)
2. children/young adults who had no idea what they were doing
3. sexual deviants
4. parties with ulterior motives, like pharmaceutical companies and surgery clinics (hence the movement's superb marketing) — Tzeentch

Larger by what metric? I'm not going call you bigoted but I am going to call you out on a rather, at first glance, baseless characterization of the whole movement. Did you get this from a peer reviewed study? A survey? Some purely emotional concern from years of watching your favorite forms of media?

Perhaps you should rephrase it in a different context as indicating that these kinds of people could be in the movement and leave out the guesstimation as to its size unless you do have something substantial in your back pocket. Just a note here.

If there was, then metaphysics would be complete, no more need to solve metaphysical problems, and no more metaphysics, which is the activity of trying to resolve such inconsistencies. — Metaphysician Undercover

Consistency only requires that the truth of said metaphysics does not or cannot result in falsifying the metaphysical viewpoint via experiential phenomenon. This doesn't require it to be explanatorily useful or to 'solve' all metaphysical problems.

I don't agree with this because I do not accept your initial premise. I don't think there is such a thing as a metaphysical hypothesis which is consistent with all experiential phenomena. — Metaphysician Undercover

So what experiential phenomenon is solipsism inconsistent with?

You should have noticed, from what I've posted, that I'm not at all interested in the conventional interpretation of "falsifiability". I believe it tends to be way off the mark. So I really don't know why you would make this suggestion to me. If you're content to sink into the quicksand of that interpretation, then so be it. — Metaphysician Undercover

The curious issue I have is about metaphysical hypotheses that are by definition consistent with any previous, current, or future experiential phenomenon. Take idealism, forms of neutral monism, most forms of ontology on substances, the brain in a vat, the simulation/matrix hypothesis, the misleading demon, being in a dream, etc. These are unfalsifiable in that you could most definitely define the terms well enough in question to the benefit of your intuitions regarding them but yet be no where closer to falsifying or proving any of them nor would it be the case that any one of them is necessarily true. . . it is also not the case that any are necessarily false.

The only true unfalsifiable series of propositions 'S' in the way you seem to be construing 'un-falsifiability' are statements or metaphysical viewpoints that for any experiential phenomenon 'E' they would be consistent with it.

This is to distinguish this from some practical weaker sense of 'un-falsifiability' that you portray here,

I don't think it implies necessary truth. For example, the claim that there is some particular configuration of stars and planets beyond the edge of the observable universe. That's unfalsifiable, because we can never check it out, no matter how close to the speed of light we accelerate a probe. But it's certainly not necessarily true.
— bert1

I don't agree that such a claim is unfalsifiable. Just because we do not have the means to falsify it right now does not mean that we will not develop the means. — Metaphysician Undercover

Your critique of this weaker sense of 'un-falsifiability' being an appeal to a healthy skepticism to our best scientific knowledge of the world that certain experiences, such as going beyond the observable horizon of our local cosmos, are physically impossible but such knowledge could be in fact over turned. Give or take a few hundred years, a thousand, or an indefinite amount of time until it is done so.

"The good of war is it allows us to express and live the desire for war inside of us." . . . and if I never am put into such a situation or do not join the armed service to put my life on the line to fulfill this desire then as a person i'll forever regret as well as atone for this failure.

A classic islamic proof of the existence of the necessary existent is Avicenna's proof that's called the proof of the truthful, it goes as the following:

1) contingent things exist.
2) a contingent existent needs an external cause to exist and if its cause is also contingent, it will also need a cause and so on.
3) the chain of contingent things either has a starting point or it doesn't have one.
4) if the chain has a starting point, that stating point will be the contingent thing that isn't caused by another contingent thing, therefore it will need an external cause that's not a member of the chain of contingent things, or in other words, an external necessary existent has to exist in this case.
5) if the chain has no starting point, it still has to be either necessary or contingent.
6) the chain is made up of each single one of its members, in other words, the existence of members causes the chain to exist, therefore the chain is can not be necessary.
7) since every member of the chain is contingent and the chain itself is contingent, therefore the chain needs an external cause to exist and that cause is neither the chain itself nor a member of it.
8) an external necessary existent has to exist.

What's your response? — BARAA

First, what is a 'thing'? I know this seems somewhat pedantic but are there really such different or distinct 'things' in reality that have dependency on others? Is reality such a plurality or is it rather monistic?

Second, what is a 'cause'? You need to define what it means for there to be causation.

Third, all I seem to see are experiences that may happen to have related natures to previous experiences as of current or in future circumstances. They change and certain changes can be experienced or seemingly brought about by the exertion of 'will' over your sensorial parts.

Idea of "God" isn't even omnipotent, because it only creates paradoxes, and paradoxes are just meaningless arguments. — batsushi7

Depends on your definition of omnipotence or whether you happen to think that any and all definitions of omnipotence require the possibility of performing actions which are not allowable among classical forms of logic or lead to paradoxical actions. Many theists and theistic philosophers i'm willing to assume don't all just assume that such a being must be able to perform contradictory actions as they probably define omnipotence in a rather different but precise manner to avoid these paradoxical situations.

God can not be omnipotence, — batsushi7

True, because omnipotence is a concept of being intuitively all powerful or the most powerful. A god can be omnipotent however.

If "God" Was truly omnipotence, he would understand our pain and suffering, and would fix the world, cure poverty, suffer, and every problem in this world, not in afterlife! Perhaps he cant do it in this life, because he isn't omnipotent. Honestly i think God doesn't even know that Africa exists. — batsushi7

This rests on the fact that you assume that god even abides by or holds any morality at all let alone any moral duties or positions that humans likewise would hold. This is the problem of evil which ONLY applies in situations when god is considered to be capable of preventing evil and also possessing a sense of moral convictions or by nature omni-benevolence that is similar to human moral qualms such that it creates an apparent contradiction. There is evil in the world and god is capable as well as willing to rid the world of such sorrows but he does not, why?

1) I mean by possible essence is that anything that can rationally exist (Its possibility in existing in any possible world doesn't make any logical contradictions). — Mutakalem

Those are conceptual possibilities not what is actual and what is metaphysically possible. These are concepts from the actual world that you have decided to abstract from and find consistent with classical logic but whether these conceptually possible worlds can actually come about is something not exactly clear. Is it possible for any other conceptually possible world to come about other than ours?

It's not that there's failure in categorization of possible and impossible. You're using human logic to try and comprehend this particular aspect of divine omnipotence and it has led you to the conclusion that there's been a miscategorization. — TheMadFool

Is it possible under the accepted logical axiomatic structure (fuzzy logic, classical logic, para-consistent, etc) for such an action to be performed? Is this logic assumed to hold with such an entity? Then it's possible only with a certain logical structure otherwise it cannot be done with another logical structure. An entity not following nature wise classical logic can then perhaps perform an action that could not be done if said entity was by nature bound to classical logic.

No such thing has occurred. A contradiction is impossible and this makes sense, it is also possible and this too makes sense, but only to god and not to us. — TheMadFool

Is it possible for an entity to bring about a state of affairs (even one that is in classical logic to be considered contradictory) then it was never impossible in the first place. It was possible all along just that you had to have a non-classical logic for it to be the case.

It's impossible for a human being to jump thirty feet off the ground. This is implicit in the definition of a human being which would include our nomological restrictions and may include but is not limited to the inability to perform said action. Does this make jumping thirty feet impossible? Depending on your nature it may be rather hidden as a tautology that you could not so it wouldn't be possible if you desired to. So when we create a robotic entity that is able to jump thirty feet off the ground then it's rather implicit (or more explicit here) that its accompanying nomological restrictions do not force it to have a jump height of less than thirty feet so it's also possible. The key point here is that to say something is possible or not is vague as it doesn't specify the specific entity's nature or restrictions.

Good question. The law of noncontradiction is the right choice if the objective is to do something impossible. — TheMadFool

If you are able to do something that is impossible then it actually isn't impossible and rather not categorized correctly or specified. If something is impossible by definition then it CANNOT be possible if it's then clearly you do not understand your definitions enough to have changed your labeling.

If you are to abide by a non-classical logic then you can perform actions that would be consistent with the axioms of that logical structure chosen to ground the nature of such an entity. If the action is implicitly to be one that must abide by classical logic then actions which you cannot perform and would be impossible would be ones in which you aren't following classical logic.

1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions — TheMadFool

Something can only perform logically consistent actions with respect to classical logic and yet be more influential, powerful, or bring about more (perhaps infinitely many) various states of affairs than any other creature that does or could potentially (or did) exist. Thusly deserving of the label of being omnipotent. . . intuitively though you haven't really specified a PRECISE definition of omnipotence in our discussion.

It's also of suspect whether a being could exist, period, that could perform logically contradictory actions or better stated what specific axioms of logic can potentially differ (or actually are) versus those that are set in stone metaphysically.

1. If there is omnipotence then there has to be contradictions
2. If there has to be contradictions then there's only one god
3. There is omnipotence (god is defined thus)
Ergo,
4. There has to contradictions (1, 3 modus ponens)
Ergo,
5. There's only one god (2, 4 modus ponens) — TheMadFool

I wasn't disagreeing with the validity of your argument but rather its soundness. I reject premise one. . . though this would require you to precisely define what omnipotence is with no VAGUE notions.

I say this because what's truly impossible in human terms are contradictions. — TheMadFool

Technically if what a human being can understand or what actions a human being can perform metaphysically are determined/governed descriptively by the laws of classical logic then what a human being could understand or perform would remain within the classical regime. It would be impossible for a human being to understand or perform contradictory actions because by their own nature they are unable to do so.

We may one day rule the universe, create another one for all we know but we would never be able to both affirm and deny something at the same time without the whole thing morphing into nonsense. — TheMadFool

As far as you know and understand the ontological ramifications for these metaphysical descriptors that underlie many aspects of our analysis of reality which we dub classical logic.

I think it's safe to say that when we talk of god's omnipotence the gold standard for that should be the ability to defy the law of non-contradiction i.e. god is able to perform a contradiction. — TheMadFool

Why? Why defy the law of non-contradiction and not that of the law identity or hold onto any other tens of different non-classical logic? Do you know that what you could happen to derive in one may not be derivable in another so in some cases it wouldn't be considered more powerful to hold one set of axioms over another.

God, being omnipotent, would be able to do contradictions and still make complete sense. — TheMadFool

Why should he be able to do contradictions? What makes this a necessary attribute of being omnipotent. . . especially given I nor you know the extant to which reality beyond our senses is more friendly to one axiomatic system of logic than another.

Only when there's only ONE god does war and peace both emanating from the same source amount to a contradiction. — TheMadFool

I think you are playing loosely with your anthropomorphic biases here in defining god. Reality just is and while there are differences among it these could be considered merely aspects or parts of god that do not amount to the whole.

Since to be omnipotent, and god has to be omnipotent, there has to be contradictions — TheMadFool

I reject this premise as to be omnipotent you would merely need to exercise more power (not defined or specified) as an entity than any other entity in existence and perhaps in all potentialities capable that the future holds. It merely is "the most powerful entity that exists". This could entail that they do hold onto within their nature an arbitrary set of governing non-classical axioms but this could also easily mean one that is logically bound by classical logic yet can still possess more power (still ill-defined or specified) than any entity that does exist, will exist, has existed, or could potentially exist. The arbitrary logical grounding that underlies such an entity is really rather second in importance.

Omnipotent being = The most powerful being — TheMadFool

I'm sort of fine with this definition if what we mean here is that we happen to search throughout the cosmos and of all beings catalogued we happen to find one that is more powerful than any previous being. You'd need to specify how you would measure this sense of being powerful or more powerful. If you mean by powerful as can actualize more things or states of affairs then two being could in number possess the same quantity of capabilities but differ largely in the nature of what they can both bring about.

So, in what sense is the most powerful being the most powerful if it's not all-powerful? — TheMadFool

By comparison to beings with less of the capability of being powerful (not defined here). It's really childishly simple to understand that in comparison and put into a line up with some numerical understanding of how powerful each entity "x" is then the most powerful is the only entity that has no other existent entity "y" that is greater in power by comparison.

x being omnipotent can do anything. — TheMadFool

Any what? Can he do things that contradict his ability to do things? Can he do impossible things (there by making them definitionally not impossible)? What can such a being do?

The eternal observer.

As I see it, two things would matter: what we were able to observe and if what we observed could change us. It would be hell if what we could observe was too limited. It would be non-existence if what we observed couldn't change us. — praxis

Intriguing dichotomy, this seems to cover my thinking.

As human beings have the environment change us as well as have it usually bring about varied experiences, however, we are not entirely in control of all that is, only that which is limited to our physical capabilities or immediate surroundings. If there is a continuation after death how much freedom would be bestowed upon us and how much would be taken away?

Things could have been in another way. — Mutakalem

Really? How do you know this? Reality is. . . how it's and to specify that it could have been any-other way (speaking in terms of nomological/metaphysical possibilities) is to assert a tall order to be given to any one conceptual possible world or even the possibility there are other possibilities.

For example a matter that needs to be explained is something that could have been possibly in a state of affair A, but instead it was in another state of affair B. — Mutakalem

If there were the equal possibility of these states of affairs A and B. You fail to realize or consider in this case that we do not know that reality was forced to be one (necessarily) but also that no other possibilities could exist to be actuated.

By law of bivalence there exist only 3 states of existence, Rationally possible/Rationally must/Rationally Impossible. — Mutakalem

I'd preface here that you'll need to specify whether you are talking about conceptual or metaphysical/nomological possibilities. There is a stark difference between what could have been or could be and what you imagine could have been or could be. How can we know what really is the case in reality? We experience reality but cannot dictate fully nor understand fully what will or could be the case irrespective of our abstractions that we entertain.

Jesus did not simply resurrect from the dead, — Josh Vasquez

Claim among many others made in the bible with no external supporting sources.

but he was the only person to do so who not only predicted his resurrection, — Josh Vasquez

It was written and thusly claimed in the bible that he predicted his resurrection then in the same documents he was claimed to have done so.

but who made the assertion that he was (and is) God in the flesh. — Josh Vasquez

Was this really a claim made by Jesus? All we know is the bible's claims of what he said as well as other theological claims that remain unsupported but are also suggested as explanations.

CS Lewis does a great job of highlighting Jesus’ claim to be God and not just a great moral teacher because he did intend to leave us thinking of him as a great moral teacher. If Jesus claimed to be God, predicted his resurrection, and physically resurrected, then your claim that his resurrection looks a lot less impressive compared to others is false. — Josh Vasquez

Stop saying Jesus claimed that this was the case. The bible claims that Jesus claimed these things and also claims that they occurred exactly or approximately as depicted.

In fact, if these three things that I have listed are true then I would suppose there has never and will never be a more important resurrection than the resurrection of Jesus Christ. Not only because of who he claimed to be prior to his resurrection, but because of the ramifications it has on the eternity of all. His teachings are no longer only lessons on how to live a morally exceptional life, but on how to achieve life itself. I make this claim because if we are destined to live in eternity with God or apart from God our eternal life would take far more precedence over our earthly “life”. — Josh Vasquez

Emotional pleas are rather weak tools to convince others of the veracity of your claims.

The gospels are simply historical accounts or records of the life of Jesus as understood by Matthew, Mark, and Luke. — Josh Vasquez

They are a mixed bag of claims that people claim are historical and theological speculation that christians claim is to be taken seriously rather than take what is said with a grain of salt. These miracles are not only claimed to have occurred but it's then strange that even if we accepted the one or few descriptions of an event that occurred correctly described what happened exactly were also supposed to be forced into assuming the author(s) were correct in their theological explanations of the event (that he was god and this is why this miracle could occur, that he was virgin birthed, that he could resurrect).

Yes because his obituary was noted in the media. — 3017amen

What? He (lets assume it was you and you survived the crash) didn't have any waking experience of interacting with the car nor being able to do so (ergo he was focusing on a different kind of experiential input) but to be considered driving the kind of experience you must indulge in is that of what we call waking experiences (who's surface level nature is starkly different to that of the imagined or dreamed).

Consciousness exists but it's logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

No. Logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

Because intuitively explanation involves our ability to investigate and therefore fully understand whatever is that we are explaining I can give you this that it's logically impossible.

In the context of an attribute that transcends formal logic, — 3017amen

I have no idea whether the abstractions we use completely and indubitably reflect the reality is in terms of the true nature of our experiences. This means I cannot absolutely say anything about including whether the abstract relations or modeling of reality we get from using classical logic or a weaker form is really uncovering all there is to reality or missing something.

Jesus also had attributes that were logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

His acclaimed miracles are only that, claims, and to further substantiate that his miracles deserve to be placed not in the real experience of seeing a fictional character on screen but in the box of experiences you have everyday with your acquaintances or the physicality of your chair you'll have to argue for that. Though, there is a difference between lacking an explanation and seeing it as logically impossible so you will have to tell why these dubious metaphysical claims of Jesus are not just to belong in the bin of fictions but also as events on there own happened for reasons no person could understand or gain any knowledge therein from.

He was driving and dreaming and unwillfully killed himself. — 3017amen

He was driving? Then he knew the proper protocol and had training to avert whatever disaster was about to transpire. He didn't do any actions, have waking experiences that is, to avert the disaster so it occurred. . . he wasn't therefore driving. To be driving you have to be aware of and fully prepared to interact with your waking experiences not do so with your inner abstractions.

He was not driving, he was on a beach, but happened to be driving. — 3017amen

You, with previous knowledge and experience, definitely know the difference (if not rather implicitly) about what is a waking experience versus one that's a dream or an inner abstraction. Imagine sitting in a chair then open your eyes (assuming you are already in a chair) and pay attention to how they appear. Both equally as real but their relationship to you as well as their surface level natures are distinct ergo imagining you are at a beach is not the same as having a waking experience of being at a beach. NO materialism or naive realism technically has to be assumed here and any form of idealism probably would tell you something similar i'm assuming.

Also, driving has to involve the waking active experiences of a person and given they were indulging in (willingly or unwillingly) in those of the imagined then they couldn't be driving.

The 'proof' lies in consciousness, the thing-in-itself, being logically impossible to explain. — 3017amen

Logically impossible to investigate fully not to explain. To assert it's not possible to describe or abstractly investigate our mental faculties via forms of logical analysis internally is one thing but this merely relays the fact that we cannot think outside ourselves. . . have you forgotten that and will correct this statement of absolute truth into one of contingency.

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. — 3017amen

Experience and our thoughts exist so what is it that does and doesn't exist? What else is it that you require to constitute consciousness that isn't our readily waking experiences and our mental abstractions there from.

As far as I was concerned, I was not driving at all, yet in reality, I was in fact driving. — 3017amen

Driving needs to be defined here as I could define driving as that experience of operating a vehicle as only indulging in purely waking experiences rather than abstractions in full. So because you were dreaming you were then not in fact actually driving.

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. — 3017amen

Yes, you were not directly aware of and performing the task of driving so therefore you were not driving. 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.

It seems that your issues are more semantic than they are ontological.

Once again - for those making assumptions or claims about the nature of God, what such a being could or could not do, be or not be, etc.

Do you have a reasoned argument that we have the ability to make such claims, or assumptions. Not trying to be difficult, but it seems an important concept that we should all understand. That if we make any proposition at all about the nature of God, we have no real basis to justify that claims. — Rank Amateur

Yes, we require a meta-analysis of the meta-metaphysics that underlie the discussion of god as numerous assumptions go into prescribing a specific nature to the label "god". We, as philosophers, should be worried and constantly vigilant of whether our discussions have devolved into semantic games with adjustable boundaries of meaning to any or all terms important to the argument.

There are just so many If --- Then God arguments that propose as true the "if" and then propose as false the "then" with some kind of truth assumption on our ability of know as even close to true any of it.

This includes the argument from evil, and every God paradox you have ever heard. — Rank Amateur

Rather true as the problem of evil is only an argument that pokes holes in a particular conception of god or the Judeo-Christian one common among layman (though even this definition is vague from philosopher to theologian with regards to precisely clarifying its properties).

Please prove that human logic has anything to do with phenomena the scale of gods. Thank you. — Jake

Is the logical apparatus (classical logic) able to reflect reality model wise on those scales? Yes, then we can safely continue using it until it breaks but if not then in comes uncertainty or metaphysical vagueness inherent to reality which could forego any collisions henceforth.

GODS: Proposals about the most fundamental nature of everything everywhere.

LOGIC: The poorly developed ability of a single half insane semi-suicidal species only recently living in caves on one little planet in one of billions of galaxies. — Jake

Gods are usually proposed as a particularly anthropomorphized beings that are supposed to serve as an all encompassing reason for what is compared to others. Using the term to mean talk about fundamental structures of nature everywhere or every when is to invite a term with rather thick baggage. Logic on the other hand is an abstract model that with certain accompanying axioms (classical logic, para-consistent, fuzzy logic, etc) serve better uses technologically or in performing metaphysical overhauls of our ontology.

Metaphorically? I think literally. God loves us all, equally. — TheMadFool

Is a claim about an arbitrary definition of what moral principles a being called god (not defined) is supposed to possess.

This is what bothers me a lot. What's the problem with all things having equal value? — TheMadFool

If everything was made of the same color and shade of said color then perceptually we wouldn't be able to actually make out distinctions in our waking experiences. The same is with assigning moral value universally as we desire to know what moral actions (personally morality doesn't make much sense to me independent of the humans who currently exclusively use it) are wrong or right and your playing a language game here saying that any action period is morally permissible.

ALL are EQUAL in the EYES of the LAW. Replace LAW with God. — TheMadFool

All people deserve to be JUDGED equally under the law. This is a terrible comparison as in law despite the fact that you'll have a jury of your peers whether you violated a restraining order or killed someone clearly there are what we call consequences for performing actions that violate our laws. What laws from this god of yours are we able to violate and thusly deserve judgement on his part (if this god of yours does indulge in performing such a duty)? If all are equally valued and no action is morally wrong clearly there can be no consequences. . . are you saying that the consequence (life in jail) is just as preferable (moral) as not going to jail?

In fact i'll reword it: ALL people are to be TREATED, INVESTIGATED, and JUDGED in-accordance with the LAW. They are equal only in the respect that inquiry into sentencing is to be done or performed is the same method wise for each person. . . in the end some come off innocent. . . but they also can come off as guilty.

So what does your god deem lawful and unlawful? Nothing is unlawful! Then choose a different analogy.

Well, if one is to maintain that some form of inequality must exist for value to have meaning then be ready to be discriminated against or, far worse, prepare yourself for this inevitable event: being killed, cut to pieces, cooked, and served to the being just that much higher in value than you as you are compared to animals and plants you consume on a daily basis. — TheMadFool

Either it must exist in materiality or among our mental concepts, inequality that is, because otherwise we wouldn't understand equity. Even if slavery remains a stain on our past it will forever guide our actions.

Too, the very notion of value understood in your terms doesn't make sense. To think higher and lower values are essential for value to be meaningful sounds very much like saying slavery must exist and that misogyny and that racism must exist to give meaning to value. That doesn't sound right to me. — TheMadFool

To think concepts such as fair laws, equity, feminism, etc, are to be valued you would have to specify why and to do so you would have to contrast (either explicitly or implicitly) them with concepts we abhor.

Firstly, it is to be taken as true that an omnibenevolent god will not play favorites with his creation: maggots, bacteria, fish, beggars, the rich, birds, etc. are all equal in god's eyes. — TheMadFool

Are they? Human beings were made in the image of god according to Christian theology but no other animal, plant, or structure in the universe falls in this category. If this is to be divorced from Christian theology it's still a question of whether god wouldn't play favorites as the moral law such a being could arbitrarily possess could be anything from any change in nature is good (human being giving a present to their grandma is on the same grounds as a hurricane) to preferring a particular brand of conscious organisms (perhaps all conscious organisms period). I think you are sneaking in the assumption that to be moral is to treat all living objects as equal in terms of moral worth.

God permits natural evil not because he's not good but because he is good as evinced by his impartial attitude in what is after all nothing but a family feud. We share 99% of our DNA with chimps; work from that to the inevitable conclusion that we're all family and god, being a good parent will not intercede regarding the "arrangement" of humans required to play host to distant worm cousins and occasionaly dying in a disaster to feed yet another relative, bacteria. — TheMadFool

IF your god has a moral standard defined basically to be as such, thusly rather alien to human standards, then yes such a being could permit such a situation logically. Though, most people who would mention the omni-benevolence of god usually emphasize the many ways it overlaps with human moral standards. Our moral standards are imperfect but we sometimes get things right (not killing period, treating others with respect via the golden rule, etc). It's just that moral teaching is easily, not for no good reason, putting humanity on a pedestal so letting unnecessary harm (he is omnipotent, however it's defined) come to human beings via a hurricane is seemingly as immoral as if he came down personally to kill every person that would be claimed by such a storm.

An argument against 'divine providence', or for 'divine indifference' (and not necessarily - decisively - an argument for the nonexistence of 'the divine'):

(a) Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
(b) Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
(c) Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
(d) Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?

'The Riddle of Epicurus' (~300 BCE) — 180 Proof

I always hate it when people bring up the problem of evil as a reason to suspect god simplicter is non-existent. Rather only a particular god with particular properties is definitely ruled out and perhaps if a god exists they are not omni-benevolent because of the problem of evil, but there is good in the world so he wouldn't be omni-malevolent, so therefore he must be a mixture either (usually more good than evil, usually more evil than good, equally as good as he is evil, or perhaps entirely indifferent to what humans would call the moral).

You'll find this is how he operates. He asks questions, then ignores your answers except to pick snippets out of context and ask more (inane) questions. It never goes anywhere.

I think of it like shadow boxing. It's decent exercise, but it's no substitute for having a real opponent. — Pro Hominem

How many of these types of users are on this forum then?

In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen

Every concept does but not every concept is mean't to mean that which isn't just perceived by consciousness but is reflective of something that possesses consciousness.

That sounds like a psychological pathology that needs resolved. — 3017amen

Maybe or not. . . these are story elements that are important to how we talk about ourselves and they tell us something if not in a rather poetic or brass manner.

God on the other hand, does not correlate to the "real" world, and is not reflected in human interaction. — Pro Hominem

Somewhat correct in the sense that god could be given conceptual grounding or "reality" in the same sense that an imaginary red chair can be. There merely needs to be a linking of certain concepts readily driven out by personal experience to imagine a particular chair is red even if you have never seen that particular chair in that color. In a sense our language is largely parasitic on our experiences and are like little independent legos that could be mismatched however we see fit but whether they give rise to predictive power is a discussion that most be had in the open, not within the confines of our mind. Does this term "god" service us a useful concept to navigate our perceptual waking experiences?

Couldn't be further from the truth. In Christianity Jesus had a conscious existence. — 3017amen

If we were assuming that there was a particular person who could be loosely given the title of Jesus then it would follow that we'd assume he was "conscious".

Just an observation, you seem to be conflating politics with something... ? — 3017amen

Not politics as god has been used in the past to signify (loosely and thusly it seems to be a rather homeless word) for morality, moral duty, the human drive, consciousness, existence, or why sometimes there is rain with lightening. It's no coincidence of our language/social life or of his perspective that we as a society make metaphors/stories that chastise us for acting as if we are our own gods.

1. From the Christian Bible/history book, see John, Exodus, et.al. — 3017amen

So it is a language game being played?

2. Okay so how can you explain your consciousness (conscious existence)? — 3017amen

Something we call conscious existence exists and it has rather intriguing conceptual features that repeat. By explain here you mean describe, right? As to explain if meant to mean discover the true nature of said entity is an impossible thing to perform by you or me.

3. What's an abstract model? — 3017amen

A language or collection of terms that match directly to our experiences but also new terms that relay relations/properties that aren't readily perceptually apparent but prove useful in navigating our experiences. Think of the terms used to describe what resides within a black box even though we cannot see within it.

4. If you are an atheist, how were you able to determine no God? — 3017amen

I've followed a four square of definitions regarding the terms agnostic, gnostic, atheist, and theist in which specify not just whether you believe in god (atheist or theist) but also if you consider such an entity to be known or unknown (agnostic or gnostic) so a gnostic atheist wouldn't believe in god and consider it non existant. I can't take any of them until you specify what this "god" is so I remain ignostic.

5. What kind of experiences are you referring to? — 3017amen

Your experiences perceptual (sensory) or sudden experiences from within or thoughts.

6. What are examples of' abstract understanding of the world'? — 3017amen

Naive realism (the kind of thinking about the world your born with/learn about early on) and most every scientific model.

7. Is that a metaphysical theory of consciousness, of some sort? — 3017amen

No, merely a thought experiment regarding the fact that even a person following solipsism clearly doesn't control his reality as much as he boasts that he does.

8. Does that translate into a form of Subjectivism; subjective truth? — 3017amen

I don't know. You'll need to clarify.

I'm really at a loss. Jesus of Nazareth. Does that define it better? — 3017amen

Well you saying "Jesus = God" is at best a renaming of the biblical character Jesus calling him now god or at worst a sneaking in of unstated characteristics that aren't readily covered by a reading of the original source material. I can call jeff "bill" but whatever characteristics a "bill" has to have to be one must be satisfied by jeff without extra stuff tagged on.

But that doesn't explain the nature of consciousness, does it? I mean, how does deduction provide for such explanation? — 3017amen

Never said it did only that such methods would prove useful in predicting either our own experiences or upon reflection of our abstract models (naive realism mixed with some biological understanding of human beings) you could find that certain ideas from other models prove consistent as well as fruitful in terms of predictive success.

And so if you can't answer the question relative to your own consciousness, how can you posit no God? — 3017amen

Only if the term is defined and the assumptions clarified can we make an assessment as to whether such an entity is consistent with said experiences/abstract understanding of the world for a certain person.

Otherwise, how can the blind person describe the existence of the color red? — 3017amen

They cannot just as a person who posits the existence of only their own mind can't help but act (strangely enough) as if they aren't alone nor truly be worthy of ruling their experiences fully (can they demand when they slam into the wall when to feel pain or not feel pain).

Some people do, and some people don't. The irony is that Philosophy itself, posit concepts of God.
And of course science does as well (theoretical physicists, cognitive science). — 3017amen

Well there are theistic philosophers or god believing people who work in science/philosophical disciplines and there are those who claim that a god (undefined term) serves as a better hypothesis, explanation, or predictor of how the universe came to be or is. Usually with such a term (god) being adorned frequently with anthropomorphic idealizations such as a personality, free will, moral duties, etc.

Jesus=God, right? — 3017amen

Well you haven't ever defined god here. I'd advise you to stop dodging as you are doing to him and you have in the past done to me. Clarify what it's that you mean by the term "god" in positive terms.

If you're scared say you're scared!! — 3017amen

Stop with this dodging and please clarify the term for this person.

And, for clarification, I've answered that, in Christianity, Jesus is God. — 3017amen

God you have not defined for this person or anyone else in this thread. Remember that accepting the existence of vagueness metaphysically/ontologically does not mean you can use it in an argument when you still expect us to not see it as vague.

"Think of it this way, you cannot use objective reasoning to explain your own consciousness (conscious existence), so how does that square with your [the] concept of no God?" — 3017amen

Depends on the abstract reasoning and mental maps were talking about. Among the many learned or "inherent" mental processes/tools if we're unable to parse one concept as correctly matching our experiences as well as the abstractions beyond said appearances (already held tentative models) then it would seem such a model may be rather useless.

I'd also kind of preface here that when you say "objective reasoning" i'm aware of a sort of intuition regarding what objective is but reasoning is not so clear. Reasoning can vary from inductive to deductive as well as float among many different logical systems (para-consistent to classical) but some combination or use of these methods or some mixture does serve us considerable success in predicting events in our experiences.

and i'd recommend you both be extremely careful with the language (not talking about respect) that you use in arguing or discussing with .

Indeed, sounds like another mystery associated with time and change. — 3017amen

In my mind I find making such a distinction (between time and change) is rather dubious as I at least consider myself to be a relationist with respect to time.

Okay, Aristotle too? — 3017amen

What?

Alternatively, here's another interesting one for you: — 3017amen

While intriguing the metaphysics surrounding spacetime physics is a rather elaborate but perhaps misaligned one with respect to special/general relativity. We basically don't assume there is this nebulous external clock from which to compare to our clocks but not have them affect our clocks (even newton who held onto such a perspective admitted you couldn't experimentally measure it). Special/general relativity brings to the forefront the idea of important relative changes in clocks that is strongly influenced by the local spacetime structure. I haven't, however, seen a theory which foregoes the speed of light connection or other facts that lead to such theories being derived and focuses only on the relative changes (simpliciter) of objects themselves with respect to one another. Don't know if this would make a rather readily accessible mathematical theory though or if it would give any further foundational discoveries.

Perhaps then if you are interested in the dissolution of the Eternalist/Presentist debate you could read this.

But math itself is an objective truth, just like Platonism and abstract ideas. How does that square your circle? — 3017amen

True in the sense that it can be shown to come logically given a certain set of accepted axioms. True in that classical logic inexorable without issue or arbitrariness derives the same theorems or conclusions.

But those logical structures seem illogical once axioms are applied to them. — 3017amen

That depends on what axioms you are applying especially since many axioms of your own experience aren't exactly able to be swapped out as easily as can be done to go from classical to para-consistent logic. I cannot make myself think in a way that is not what i'm now.

Great God exists then. Or did I get that wrong? — 3017amen

Depends on how god is defined if this goes in line with yours then yes. Do not however (beyond being consistent with your definition of god) apply further aspects of your worldview without elaboration as to how they do apply to me lest a straw-man is created.

Are you reincarnated? — 3017amen

:rofl: , no i've just seen later examples of William Lane Craig in his arguments or snippets of debates along with external knowledge as to his character that haven't exactly made me appreciate him as much. Perhaps in years previous he was more appreciable.

Back when I wasn't alive and William Lane Craig didn't seem as much of a dunce.