they can't say much about consciousness and maybe they never will — Manuel

That's the entire point that shows why

Sure intentionality is mental, but the mental is physical — Manuel

doesn't follow.

The other you being the same you depends on which stance on personal identity you take. But even then I'm inclined to say that neither biological or psychological view has it right.

As for the rest, I don't know.

There is no evidence it causes cancer. — Gregory

oof

Yes. But this begs that question, why would I attempt to have a conversation on the philosophy of mind (with a person who is learned in this area) without any prior knowledge?

What I said is quite accurate friend... even now you do not need a definition for every word I use, and what does this allow us to do? It allows us to communicate at a deeper level. — JerseyFlight

I didnt mean it as an argument my apologies. I simply wanted to get a clearer picture of what you were saying. I agree with your stance. Thanks for the answer!

Yes, it does require some definitions, but you fail to grasp my point. What you are talking about is the process of novice dialectics. This is proven quite easily, when two knowledgeable philosophers come together to discourse they do not define every term, because they are not coming to the conversation without any prior understanding. Further, if you reason this way you will not get very far in knowledge. I can easily play what I call, 'the narrowing game,' but I try not to do it because I am trying to get somewhere in the conversation, I am not merely trying to win. You are, in fact, already practicing what I say, unless I'm mistaken and you define every conjunction? Of course you don't and neither does the other person because you have a basic understanding of these symbols. It's the same way with more advanced dialectics, this act of presupposing, of shared meaning, is how knowledge unfolds through dialectic. — JerseyFlight

But surely one can be a novice dialectic when it comes to one particular subject and a well versed one when it comes to another. No?

If a philosopher of mind and a philosopher of religion meet to have a discussion, would not one of them require some definitions to be able to continue discourse?

And here im talking about the generally accepted definitions of things but often others have their own definitions and it becomes very confusing if someone doesnt ask for a concrete description.

Or am I completely of the mark here?

In @Banno his post he argued that philosophy about God using scriptural revelation as premise is bad. And I'm in agreement with that. From what I have seen from these threads they haven't done that. Perhaps the philosophy used in them is abysmal but then you might want to show these people that.

If that is a "waste of time" as you so often say then take @Philosophim his advice and not partake in them. Aside from that the admins have sort of given them a single thread so all of this should be settled.

Yes I have a few books about Jesus lying around. Some conservative scholars and some critical. All in all they're great reads. Very interesting.

I dont do the historical thinking myself because I dont know much about it. I just follow those who know lots more.

From what I gather theres a few commonly accepted things about Jesus and also very obviously contested ones.

Its, according to all the reading ive done about it, accepted that Jesus was a person in history and that it was believed he was a miracle worker.

I think thats all you can argue really. A historian cant accept supernatural claims.(supernatural: acts or happenings that do not happen within our natural laws) Plenty of them do believe it happened but I dont think they can historically prove it.

Gotta say that I'm sad to see him go. He had a charm to him.

Which would be supernatural and more akin to poetry if we were to accept what Eric says. :s

Well in my previous posts I had argued why I don't accept your usage of natural and supernatural and because of that I cannot agree with you that 1: Talk of "supernatural" things are poetical in nature rather than philosophical. 2: The premise that 'God exists' violates the law of non-contradiction.

But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc. — EricH

180 is not a theist. They are, like me, arguing that your claim: supernatural things are beyond philosophy and more like poetry is asserted without any support.
Amen and Punshhh are the closest to theists you can get. I haven't got an opinion on the matter yet because I am incredibly poorly read and a big noob.

Why am I being ignored here lol

I dont think the conclusion that it breaks the law of non contradiction follows at all. Me and 180 have been hinting at this for a while now.

More poetry here. — EricH

I don't think this is a correct statement. But you can probably change my mind.
See my reply to frank above. It's also aimed at you.

When you talk about belief in the imaginary do you solely speak to theism or does every belief a person has have hidden psychological motivations? I can certainly see your point and I think it's true in a whole number of cases but it can be said about anyone, no?

Those who come to religious belief in terms of propaganda, apologetics, are manipulated, victims of their own ignorance. So here the cause, though it has an ideological base, it is still premised on the negative. People give all kinds of reasons for their beliefs, but these often only serve to mask the real psychological motivations. — JerseyFlight

I think that someone could come to belief in God through philosophy and that they could have good reason for it. Usually God's existence itself doesn't guarantee or promise a whole lot to a person. When religions get added to the scene, like Christianity. A whole lot of promises and actions are attributed to this God. And that, I think, is where the danger of psychological motivation comes from. But I still believe that if someone is aware of their motivations, unless you think that is not possible, could reflect on those and their belief so that their reasoning is more distanced from bias. If this weren't possible then bias was the biggest undefeatable enemy in philosophy.

Above all, we know there's a problem when a rationale for the belief is legitimately refuted and the subject merely looks for something else by which to retain the belief. This is a good indication that one is being driven by their psychology. — JerseyFlight

Well look at it this way. You are a fan of Hegel. I haven't a clue what he argues for and who he was (I know shame on me). But if someone were to come up to you and falsify the reason you have for holding the same positions as he had. Would you not first go back and read his material over? Rethink your entire situation? If by the end of this reflection you have found new or improved reasons or found out that the attack is somehow wrong then is that not a valid thing? It doesn't make sense to me that if some random guy on the internet broke down my entire reasoning that I would simply say "okay, i'm X now". No I would reflect and rethink. And If you are honest to yourself and you acknowledge that the objections are true then you would change beliefs. Because who wants false beliefs?

Thank you for replying though.

Assertion without argument again. Fine if you define supernatural" this way, but definitions are neither true or false; they're either useful or not for helping advance arguments which themselves are either true or not. What you're saying here, Frank, just seems wholly arbitrary and even tautological. Also, using "reality" and "existence" interchangeably confuses more than clarifies your point. — 180 Proof

Thank you for teaching me new words and things. :joke:
Added: I had suggested the usage of reality here. It probably should have just been something that exists is part of existence as a whole. And something that is real is part of reality. That seemed to be what Frank is saying.

Yes Frank. I was in part also replying to Eric who is trying to argue for a contradiction between God and exist. Sorry.

I agree with the main gist of what you are saying. If something exists then it must be part of reality. And since it seems that your definition of supernatural here is something outside of reality then it is nonsense. I simply take issue with the usage of natural and supernatural here. And it's less against (In a friendly way) you but more against Eric. You just seemed to take the same definitions and I find it to be a mistake. The way that Eric seems to be arguing is that anything that is physically observable is natural. And that only empirically verifiable concepts or things are real philosophy. And then he goes on to say that supernatural things, things that are not physical , not empirically testable and beyond our universe are not philosophy but poetry.

Now my guess is that he would argue that if God is supernatural then on the basis of the definitions he, or the talking about him, is bad philosophy and more like poetry. And somehow then concludes that 'God exists' breaks the law of non-contradiction. To me the key problem here is with natural which asserts physicalism and empiricism. And also apparently that another realm outside of the universe (Think of the dolls 180 brought up) must be supernatural i.e. Nonphysical.

Now to most of you guys who have made up their mind about a lot of these things the assertions might bother you less. But to me, someone who hasn't got any steadfast beliefs at all, it does. Other than that all of this is just a sort of game where I test my ability and learn a whole ton in the process. I'm sure that when Eric comes back he'll whoop my ass.

IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it. — Frank Apisa

I think the usage of supernatural here is doing us a disservice. It seems more as if you guys are actually talking about reality as a whole. i.e if something exists it is part of reality.

I feel like the definitions of natural and supernatural here are extremely weird. If you define natural as only physical things and then say that is all that can exist then you are basically just asserting physicalism.

Something existing outside of reality would be a contradiction. But something nonphysical existing outside our 'plane of existence' does not seem contradictory. Or a different matroyshka doll outside another. So God and exist would not seemingly violate the law of non-contradiction. 180 is right on point with what i'm trying to argue.

Much like God, I have noticed, nature/natural has many definitions with many applications.

What's most interesting is that I don't think I called you any names? — JerseyFlight

You might not have specifically called him names but you certainly were extremely obnoxious and rude.
Even a total noob like me can see that MU dealt with substance in his post to which you responded with statements without any justification. You refrain from arguing your points or quoting source material but you expect another to do so? You might very well be right in everything you claim. I haven't a clue. But surely you ought to argue and show why it is true rather than citing books? Which I don't mind if you add more on top of that.

Out of a past interaction with you it seems that you only like to discuss with people who hold the same views as you. And seemingly call people who do not (yet?) hold these views insincere thinkers?

Energy is a mathematically conserved quantity and the conservation of it comes only from time invariance mathematically. Light is would be matter then that lacks the monadic property of rest mass but photons still exist. — substantivalism

Always nice to learn more. Thanks. I guess I got too caught up on the mass part!

I have a gut feeling that

— Wayfarer

may know a thing or two about this.

Edit: Didnt know how to ping so I did a quote :sweat:

Im having some trouble with the words here. I agreed with frank that everything that exists is part of existence. And I thought this would be the same as saying 'everything that exists is part of nature.'. But there seems to be a subtle difference to this?

I remember long ago reading a snippet of theology wherein they argue that things that are natural are bound by the laws of nature. If I jump off a platform I will fall and adhere gravity. Then you had things like preternatural which they would view things that were not bound entirely to natural laws but did have natures of their own. Angels, for example, would be able to perform "miracles" that defy natural laws. And then you had the supernatural. Which they would classify only God in because to them (Im not entirly sure if it was aquinas thats why Im sayint them) God was not bound by and natural law or even any nature.

This confuses me however because nowadays its not uncommon to see people say that God has a nature of his own. So that confuses me.

Anyway, what I meant to say is that I equated supernatural with existence. If something exists its part of existence. But if something exists, must it be part of nature? Or otherwise, must it be part of the physical universe?

But If I ignore all that and say that if I follow your definition of natural then yes God as classically understood is supernatural?
All if this is very confusing for someone who hasnt a clue :joke:

everything, can be defined as matter.
nothing, as no matter — Augustusea

I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything.

god is both defeated and victorious over himself in this situation, a contradiction, thus illogical.
god can be both omnipotent and not omnipotent here,
he is powerful to create it, but by creating it he isn't powerful. — Augustusea

So then is this a mistake on the definition of omnipotence or is this a mistake within the question "Can God create a stone he cannot lift?" ?

It seems to me that it's the same as asking 'Why is there something rather than nothing?'. As in that it's a wrongheaded question that leads us nowhere.

I want this!

No I meant those hypotheses. Multiverse and string theory all that.
I guess it's fun to imagine if our dreams are what you say they are. But I wouldn't go further than that.
But then again. What do I know? ;p

I think you're going too deep into these hypotheses.

Ah, sorry Frank I didnt notice this. Well I agree with your qualms with supernatural for the same reasons but I still dont see why, if we use that definition. Eric would say that its contradictory to say he exists.

Sorry if im using all the wrong words to describe something. Very noob! But to me if God is omnipotent then he must be maximally great. Creating another entity that is above him in whatever way would contradict his definition of being the greatest being. You can only have 1 greatest being. This is what I thought people meant when they say "asking God to create an entity bigger than himself is like asking him to create square circles." But it does strike me as circular?

You also have the sufficiently or necessary omnipotent semantics but as always I think Im just misunderstanding the entire thing :razz:

Yes thats what I meant. So the question "who will win?" Or "Can he make a rock he cannot lift?" Lead to logical impossibilities and should be disregarded?

Do I get you if I say that the question itself is nonsensical? Because thats what I meant too but I failed to communicate correctly.

Im not a theist. Im not an atheist either. I just dont know.

But I never even once agreed with the notion that having a belief in God, faith, is entirely devoid of reason and logic. That just flies against all experience, which I grant is very little compared to a lot of you. I have had with belief personally and with others I have met.

Who in their right mind can honestly hope or believe in something without reasoning about it.
Yes God and religion can act as emotional support. But I could never ever convince myself to have faith in something without good reason. I cannot. I am also not convinced that arguments cannot rationally lead someone to sincerely believe God exists. I dont care about convincing others at all. I care about my own worldview and whether or not it is informed.

I simply feel that the brushing away of a serious philosophical view in such a manner is not right. Even if its in an academic minority.

Ive said many times that I barely know what I'm talking about and that its probably missing lots of philosophical vigour. So when I say I disagree with something its on a prima facie basis. I dont see how God and exist cannot be used in a sentence together. I dont see how it is a contradiction. Especially when, as evidenced in the ongoing discussions, we dont even have a proper definition of God around here.

thanks to you both

Where could I read up on the older and new notions of causation?

Assuredly not. Libertarians are not serious thinkers, but they are ideological thinkers, their approach to the world is fallaciously monological. — JerseyFlight

You seem to be very elitist when its about who is a serious thinker or not :brow:

You said I was not being serious. I take that (Pun intended) very seriously.

You are quick to make decisions I suppose. I am honest as can be when I say that I am as serious as possible. And I have told you that I do not hold steadfast beliefs about reality. Only convictions that SEEM true to me. You've given me psychology and I've told you why I have issues with it at first glace.

You don't have to give an answer. But then at least don't go spouting around that I'm an insincere troll.

Right I agree it would be necessary if it really were the case. The problem is I don't think we can make the generalization that religious belief and convictions are all the result of these psychological deficiencies. The general public, I believe, is very prone to these mistakes. But to a person who is aware of their bias and psychological shortcomings and does their best to counteract and divert them? I am very wary to describe the same to them.

Atheists and theists often throw these things at eachother a lot too. "You are too rebellious to believe in a God! You just don't want to be told what to do!" or "You are simply afraid of the harsh reality of life. You escape to God!" I just feel like it doesn't cut it.

I would be forced to accept this yes. A person cannot choose his beliefs, right?
I'm pretty sure anyone would have issues accepting this at first and they ought to learn to live with this.

I'd also like to add that I haven't a clue what I believe. I am 18 and of the idea that I know too little and have read to little to form beliefs as of yet. These religious convictions don't seem to make the suffering and issues of the world disappear either. People still have to live with them?

Well if you would want to tell my what the criteria are. Because I really do want to learn if I'm mistaken.
As Enpassant said. These theories could be made for everything how do you know they are true?