This is just a quick preliminary reply. If this reply misses anything, I'll reply more tomorrow.
\

"But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)?" — Michael Ossipoff


Why does there have to be alternative proposals? — Sam26

i was just looking at what I considered the 2 possibilities. But sure, nonphysical entities that could be responsible for worlds needn't necessarily really fit what is usually meant by reference to God or gods.


I'd said:

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design.

You replied:

That's certainly a possibility, but if the evidence of NDEs are as strong as I think, then it's probably much different than just my existence fits within the realm of what's possible. Anything that exists fits within the logic of what's metaphysically possible, if it's true that all facts obtain, but I don't know that that is true.

For my metaphysics, it isn't necessary to say that abstract facts would obtain in the absence of any experiencer, or that there couldn't have been Nothing with no abstract facts at all. (I think there are things that can be said on those matters, but those issues aren't crucial to my metaphysics.)

Everyday within a particular universe new facts obtain, it's not static.

Sure, we perceive the hypothetical "facts" that are the "if " premises and "then" conclusions of abstract if-then facts to be true--at least in relation to eachother, in their if-then relation. But I don't claim that they are. What's always timelessly true are the abstract if-then facts themselves. The "if" premises and "then" conclusions needn't be true, and I don't make any claim that they really are.

Although maybe one could argue that every possibility at some point will obtain, especially if you believe in multiple universes.

I claim that the abstract if-then facts constituting our life-experience possibility-stories are timelessly true. ...like the fact that if all dogs are mammals, and if all mammals are animals, then all dogs are animals.

For me, consciousness lies at the bottom of everything (it's what unites everything), even this reality is a result of a mind or consciousness, and we are just a part of that, with our own individuality.

Yes I think there's something to that, because obvious we are the central and primary component of our life-experience possibility-stories. Those stories are entirely about us and our experience. We're central to all of that. So arguably, as far as our life-experience possibility stories go (and I regard them as what metaphysically is, at least as far as we're concerned), we could be said to be primary.

Some might ask, well isn't that a god of sorts? I don't know, maybe, maybe not. I'm agnostic about that.

Or it seems maybe compatible with the notion of Soul or Atman, though I don't say it that way.


I'd said:

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.

You replied:

I don't know what evidence there would be for your second paragraph, that is, "The sleep at the end of lives...," etc. I can't make any sense of a person having existence in timelessness, I'm not sure what that would mean. Unless you're talking about ceasing to exist, then of course there would be no experiences for you to have.

I'm just suggesting that, at a late stage of shutdown, but before experience really shuts down, there wouldn't remain any awareness that there are, were or could be such a thing as identity, time or events. That's all I meant by "timelessness".

My take is based on what I've discovered after studying NDEs for over 12 years. The evidence suggests something quite different. I think we go on as temporal individuals, and that we experience many different lives in many different universes. This is more of an educated guess though, based on the studies.

Absolutely. I believe that there's probably reincarnation, because, as i was saying, it's metaphysically implied and supported.

So, for nearly all of us (and almost surely for all of us at these forums) there's a--probably long--sequence of lives.

And yes, there's no reason to expect those lives to all be in the same world. ...but one would expect them to be in somewhat similar worlds, to the extent called for by the person's subconscious wants, needs, inclinations and predispositions.

I suggest that the sleep at the end-of-lives occurs only upon life-completion, after a (fairly large) finite number of lives

Michael Ossipoff

I don’t think that it’s necessary to invoke Intelligent Design (which amounts to Theism) at the metaphysical level, to explain how there could be a metaphysical world, including living beings like ourselves. It seems to me that the “existence” of the metaphysical world can be explained, within itself, without outside or higher invocation. — Michael Ossipoff


Michael, I don't see how intelligent design is Theistic ("or amounts to Theism"), even at the metaphysical level. I know that Theists use the argument to support their belief that the universe was created by God, but all the intelligent design argument concludes is that there was a designer or designers. The argument says nothing about the nature of the designer, or even the character of the designer.
— Sam26

I just assumed that it was a kind of Theism. I don't want to presume to speak for someone else about what their position is.

But, if it isn't Theism, then what are the alternative proposals for who the designer is (or who the designers are)?

If the designers/creators are physical, like biological organisms, or robots or computers, who have created a computer simulation that is our world, I've told why I claim that "simulated-universe" theory is insupportable:

The theory is that, somehow, the transistor-switchings in some computer somewhere "makes" our world. How is that "making" supposed to happen? The computer's program could correspond to one of the infinitely-many possibility-stories, but the person who wrote the program didn't "make" that story. It was/is already timelessly "there", as a system of abstract facts. Nor does the computer's execution of the program "make" that story

The computer can only duplicate and display that story for its viewing audience. Neither the computer, nor its programmer can make that possibility-story, which was/is timelessly there.

If it's a nonphysical designer and creator, then how is that different from what many people mean by God? ...or by the gods?

As for myself, I say that the notion of "creation" is anthropomorphic. Very few things can be said about Reality beyond what's describable and discussable--In fact, that's a truism. Metaphysics is the limit of what's describable and discussable.

My own view is that the universe does show evidence of design

It goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine the physical world, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here.

Designed that way?

I've been telling an alternative explanation: There are infinitely-many abstract if-then facts, and infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts. Of course, among that infinity of systems, there must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.

There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

That's your life-experience possibility-story. It goes without saying that it would be consistent with there being you. So that that consistent-ness needn't be explained by design.

...consciousness survives bodily existence.

Of course, And that's so whether or not there's reincarnation. A person never experiences a time without experience.

The sleep at the end of lives (or the end of this life, if there isn't reincarnation) is timeless. Before actual complete shutdown (which of course is never expesrienced by the dying person), there's a time when there remains no memory or knowledge that there was or could be such things as life, world, body, identity, time, or events. That person has reached timelessness, and the impending complete shutdown has then become completely irrelevant and meaningless for him/her. S/he neither knows nor cares about it.

It's just sleep.

Because it's our final outcome, and is timeless, I claim that it's our natural, normal and usual state of affairs.

Michael Ossipoff

You wrote:

.

I sometimes find myself baffled by the absurdity of everything that exists. How can it be possible that little quarks somehow not only hold themselves together, but organize themselves into groups, which then organize themselves into atoms. Oh, and by the way, these atoms form all kinds of materials that have different colours, smells, consistencies, even though they are made of the same subatomic materials, just in different combinations. And if that's not baffling enough, some of these atoms know how to organize themselves in ways that allow for movement and reproduction. And the complex biological organisms that exist - somehow programmed by DNA to produce life-sustaining systems. Throw in brains and self-awareness just to make matters more complicated...

.
It's hard not to compare the behavior of quarks and such to the bits and bytes in the computers we program. How could these quarks assemble and organize without some sort of outside guidance? A computer could never have been created - never mind programmed - without some sort of intelligent designer.

.
If we can accept that our world has been intelligently created in some way, what do you think would be the most likely implications, and why?

.
Though I’m a Theist (not fashionable here), I think we should explain things ourselves whenever possible, at the lowest explanatory level possible, without invoking higher.

.
(I clarified that I’m a Theist so that this won’t be taken as an Atheistic argument)

.
I don’t think that it’s necessary to invoke Intelligent Design (which amounts to Theism) at the metaphysical level, to explain how there could be a metaphysical world, including living beings like ourselves. It seems to me that the “existence” of the metaphysical world can be explained, within itself, without outside or higher invocation.

.
I’ve posted, today, a long explanation of my metaphysical proposal, at a discussion-thread called “Is Logic Fundamental to Reality?” It's on page 2 of that thread.

Here is a direct link to that page of that thread:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/2795/is-logic-fundamental-to-reality/p2

.I’d gladly paste a copy of it here, but maybe others would prefer that I just refer you to that other thread—a currently-active thread at the Metaphysics & Epistemology forum, or the General Philosophy forum.

.
One thing I left out of that post was this statement:

.
You’re in a life by virtue of being the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories. So you couldn’t have not been in a life.

.
…a statement that will make more sense in the context of that post.

.
But, just briefly, in keeping with that metaphysical proposal, of course it goes without saying that, when physicists investigate and examine matter, what they find is going to be consistent with our being here. That’s because your life-experience story has to be consistent, because it consists of abstract facts. Inconsistent propositions aren’t facts. Facts aren't mutually-inconsistent.

.
That’s why all of those things that you referred to are just right for life. That’s why the constants of physics are just right for life. I’ve read that if those constants were even a little different, there wouldn’t have been life (like us, at least).

.
For example:

.
Life (our at least our own form of it) requires stable atoms of consistent distinct kinds. For that, it would help to have discrete-valued quantities. And that, in turn can be achieved by standing-waves.

.
…hence wave-mechanics, matter-waves, quantum-mechanics.

.
Those atoms are a way of making chemistry, and life, possible.

.
A few comments on the census questions:

.
My positions didn’t fit into any of the answer-categories, but I answered the census as best I could, and my answers were the ones that were nearly unanimous.

.
But let me answer better this time:
.

1. What is the nature of self-awareness? (3 votes)
.
I am the only truly self-aware entity in my version of reality
0%
We are a collection of self-aware entities sharing the same reality
100%

For each one of us, hir (his/her) individual life-experience possibility-story is set in a possibility-world, and of course for all of us, it’s the same one. That isn’t surprising: Of course you must be a member of a species, and of course, in your world, there must be other members of that species. That’s the rest of us.
That suggests answer b). But there’s something to be said for answer a) too:

Your life-experience possibility-story is specifically about your experience. Everything that you know about this world, including the other people, is from your experience, and is part of your own personal individual life-experience possibility-story.
.

2. What is the nature of consciousness?

.
Consciousness is the property of being a purposefully-responsive device.
.
…such as an animal (like us humans), or a mousetrap, a refrigerator lightswitch, or a thermostat.
.
Of course we humans differ from a mousetrap in a number of relevant ways. We’re more complex, and we’re the result of natural selection.
.
Yes, because of our animal-chauvinism, we don’t like to use the word “consciousness” in reference to a mousetrap, a refrigerator lightswitch or a thermostat.
.
Depending on how chauvinistic we want to be, we reserve the word “consciousness” to biological organisms, animals, vertebrates, mammals, or humans.
.
Before anyone objects, I have no objection to a (explicitly acknowledged) chauvinistic definition of “consciousness”.
.

.
3. (3 votes)
.
Consciousness arises as a result of existence, and ends with death
0%

.
Answer a) is incorrect. Your consciousness never ends. You never experience a time when there’s no experience.
.
In the physical story, yes you’re the result of your surrounding world. But, more accurately, you and your surroundings are the two complementary halves of your life-experience possibility-story.
.
So it wouldn’t really be right to call you a result of your surroundings.
.
On the other hand, it would be right to say that you’re in a life because of who you are. You’re in a life by virtue of being the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story.
.

Consciousness is assigned to an entity upon birth, and is reassigned upon death
0%

.
There’s probably something right about that.
.
The “entity” that you are, is the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story. You’re that, and that’s why you’re in a life. But it was the reason for your birth, not a result of your birth.
.
I say there’s probably reincarnation (a very unfashionable thing to say here), because it’s metaphysically implied (by the metaphysics that I propose).
.
I’ve told why you’re in a life. If the same reason that obtained previously, still obtains at the end of this life (because you still have subconscious wants, needs, inclinations, feelings that predispose you to life, making you the protagonist of a life-experience possibility-story), then the expected presumption is that the same result will happen, and you’ll again be in a life.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"But I should add that, though logic isn't fundamental to Reality, it's fundamental to metaphysical-reality, and is what what-metaphysically-is is constructed of". — Michael Ossipoff

Word salad. — StreetlightX

Not finding "word salad" in a dictionary, I'll just guess that it means words that don't constitute a sentence, or maybe a sentence that doesn't have a meaning, or a large collection of sentences that doesn't say anything.

But my words were a sentence, one sentence. And each of its clauses has an explicit declarative meaning.

Shall I separate the statements in the clauses?

1. Logic isn't fundamental to Reality.

Many agree with that.

2. Logic is fundamental to metaphysical-reality.

Not everyone believes that metaphysical reality is all of Reality. The statement that logic is fundamental to metaphysical reality is explicit. I didn't explain it or justify it, The OP didn't ask for that. He asked a yes or no question.

3. Logic is what what-metaphysically-is is constructed of.

You could replace "constructed of" with "consists of", if that would be clearer.

As I said, I didn't explain or justify that statement, because explanations and justifications weren't asked for.

But it's a clause with a straighforward declarative meaning.

Maybe what StreetlightX was confusedly trying to say was that i didn't explain what I meant, or make any effort to justify it. As stated above, explanations and justifications hadn't been asked for.

Then I'll briefly here give a bit of explanation, in case StreetlightX has seen any of my posts about that:

I suggest the following:

Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact.

For example:

"There's a traffic roundabout at the intersection of 34th & Vine."

"If you go to 34th & Vine, then you'll encounter a traffic roundabout."

Additionally, any fact in this physical world is at least part of the "if " premise of some if-then statements, and is the "then" conclusion of other if-then facts.

For example:

A set of hypothetical physical-quantity values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a "physical law") are parts of the "if " premise of an if-then fact.

...except that one of those quantity-values can be taken as the "then" conclusion of that if-then fact.

Obviously, a quantity-value can be part of the "if " premise of some if-then facts, and the "then" conclusion of other if-then facts.

There are infinitely-many complex systems of such inter-referring if-then facts.about hypotheticals.

Inevitably, there's one system, among those infinitely-many logical systems, that has the same events and relations as your experience. There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.

I call that your life-experience possibility-story.

I can't prove that the objectively, fundamentally, existent physical world that Materialists believe in doesn't superfluously exist, as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, the if-then system that I've described.

We're used to declarative, indicative grammar, and it's convenient. But, as described here, this physical world can be described entirely by conditional grammar. Maybe we're too willing to believe in the grammar that we use..

Instead of one world of "is", infinitely-many worlds of "if".

This suggestion (but maybe referring to mathematical/logical structure, but not explicitly about if-thens, and not stated from the subjective point-of-view) was apparently first made (in the West at least) by the physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844.

Michael Ossipoff

But I should add that, though logic isn't fundamental to Reality, it's fundamental to metaphysical-reality, and is what what-metaphysically-is is constructed of.

Michael Ossipoff

Is Logic "Fundamental" to Reality?

No.

Though logic is part of Reality, there's no justification for saying that it's fundamental to Reality.

Michael Ossipoff.

Personally, I love living life, and I truly enjoy the pleasures of joy, camaraderie, whatever other good things occur throughout life. However, I do still feel living is somewhat pointless. Why slave all the hours of the day away working, studying, whatever, just to die one day? — Open-minded Opossum

Who says that you're supposed to be doing all that for some future advantage? What if it's just for itself?

It is.

It needn't and doesn't have other purpose or meaning.

This notion of living for the future is, of course, a big cause of much unhappiness and dis-satisfaction.

To have everything forgotten. Every accomplishment you've worked so hard to achieve. Everything gone forever.

What's wrong with that, if it was just for itself, for play, or Lila, as the Hindus say?

Well, unless it turns out the afterlife is a legitimate thing

"Legitimate" vs "Illegitimate" isn't the distinction, Your temporary life is legitimate too.

But I've been saying the sleep at the end of lives is our usual, normal and natural state of affairs, because it's life's final outcome, and because it's timeless.

, but until there is some sort of scientific evidence I won't believe in that fully.

I assure you that there will never be scientific evidence of anything other than the interactions of the objects in this physical world--a subject that has nothing to do with what we're talking about.

Of course, the joys of life are enough to continue living, but as a human being the only thing we live for is to reproduce and to aid our species.

No, that's just from natural-selection's point-of-view. From your own point of view, you do what you do because you like to. There' s no other reason, justification, purpose or meaning--nor need or should there be.

And sure it's temporary, but so what? Then enjoy it while you're in it. The fact that it will eventually be over, why should that be a problem? When the time for the peaceful rest and sleep at the end of lives arrives, what's wrong with that?

As Ender's Game says, humans are ultimately just tools, and the entire life we live is just to further our species. It's sad when I think about it that way.

That's a sad, unhappy and unrealistic way to regard life. See above.

Michael Ossipoff

Wouldn't you agree that whether the good or bad aspects of life predominate depends on whose life it is, and what their circumstances are, and what happens to/for them?

But we don't have a choice about being in our life anyway.

If there's reincarnation, then most likely the good and bad lives average-out.

(...and it seems to me that reincarnation is metaphysically-supported.)

If there isn't reincarnation, then you're just out-of-luck if your life is primarily one of suffering, disadvantage, adversity, loss.

But, even then, you have the considerable consolation that life isn't everything, and that this life will end with well-deserved rest and sleep.

So, overall, I'd say that metaphysical reality, and Reality itself, are good.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Of course an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact can't be disproved. That doesn't make it of interest or value.

.
Janus replied:
.

Except it is the default position

.
“My belief is the default position, so there!”
.

…of the mind that has rid itself of superstitious reifications.

.
Alright, get out the dictionaries—what’s he saying?
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
Superstitious:
.
Of, relating to or swayed by superstition.
.
Superstition:
.
1a) A belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation.
.
[Sounds like empty namecalling, unless Janus can justify it]
.
b)Any of several “attitudes of mind” specified by Merriam-Webster resulting from superstition as defined above.
.
2.) A notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.
.
[What’s Janus’s evidence for Materialism?]
.
Reification:
.
The process or result of reifying.
.
Reify:
.
To regard (something abstract) as a material or concrete thing.
.
[Speaking for myself, I don’t claim that the abstract facts, or inter-referring systems of them, that I speak of are “concrete” or “material” (except in the sense of being the basis of what’s called “material”). I’ve been emphasizing that those systems neither need nor have objective or “concrete” “reality” or “existence”, or “reality” or “existence” other than in their own local inter-referring context.]
.
Houghton-Mifflin:
.
Superstition
.
A belief, practice or rite held in spite of evidence to the contrary…
.
[Again, what’s Janus’ evidence for Materialism?]
.
…resulting from ignorance of the laws of nature [physical laws]…
.
[The “laws of nature” describe the workings of the physical world, but they in general don’t support Materialism over other metaphysicses, and in particular don’t contradict the metaphysics that I propose.]
.
Reification:
.
Same as Merriam-Webster. See above.
.

That's why people are naturally naive realists.

.
I now avoid the words “Realism” and “Anti-Realism”, because “Realism” is used with different definitions.
.
By my metaphyisics, there’s the individual’s life-experience possibility-story. That individual and hir surroundings are two mutually-complementary halves, and so your surroundings are as “real” as you are. That story is about the individual’s experience.
.
In any case, “real” isn’t metaphysically-defined.
.
Maybe people could be called naïve Materialists because, as a practical matter, our material surrounds are what we must deal with. So then, why don’t you get off the Philosophy Forum, and take up the study of Engineering.
.
But some people are interested in the matter of what is, even if it isn’t a physically-practical topic.
.

I like the old Zen saying " Before I practiced Zen mountains were mountains and rivers were rivers, when I began practicing mountains were no longer mountains and rivers no longer rivers, and when I gained enlightenment mountains were again mountains and rivers again rivers". (Paraphrased)

.
When we were kids, and believed as we were taught, we believed in the brute-fact of the objectively and fundamentally existent physical world, with its objectively-existent physical things.
.
Some of us still do. They’re called Materialists or Science-Worshippers.
.
But, as I’ve been saying, among the infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably is one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
So I suggest that what metaphysically is, is all abstract if-then facts. How real is that? Arguably the only element of metaphysics, the only metaphysical thing, that’s really “real” is the Nothing that is the quiescent background of those abstract facts.
.
So, first there was a mountain, then there is no mountain!
.
But, because this world and its things are the context of my life, I call it real. (As I said, “real” isn’t metaphysically-defined anyway, so we can call “real” whatever we choose to.)
.
If it’s as real as me, if it’s my experience and my life, that’s real enough.
.
Lo, there is no mountain, then there is!
.

The philosophically reflective person just takes physical objects to be physical objects made of 'stuff'. When she begins to study philosophy she thinks they are illusions of. or constituted by, the mind

.
I didn’t say it was “constituted by the mind”.
.

…in one of the countless elaborate ways that have been devised by philosophers. When she returns to realism and materialism it will not be a naive realism and materialism, though. It will be a realism and materialism that incorporates, and makes corporeal, both mind and spirit.

.
So now she’s a Dualist or Spiritualist? Speak for yourself.
.
And if you advocate or subscribe to something other than Materialism, then no you aren’t a Materialist, and you haven’t returned to Materialism.
.
For example, as I said above, I only call this world “real” in the sense that it’s the context of my life, and as real as me, and that’s real enough.
.
Michael Ossipoff

You can no more disprove a presumption of physicalism than you can prove one.

Of course an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact can't be disproved. That doesn't make it of interest or value.

Michael Ossipoff

Someone here said:

Without prejudice, it remains a possibility that science is actually investigating all there is to be investigated.

Well no, because science only studies, investigates and describes (as well as possible) this physical universe and the interactions of its parts. There's more to be "investigated", discussed. That's why there's a topic called "metaphysics".

...an "investigation" or discussion regarding what there is. One metaphysical theory, Materialism, is that the physical world comprises all of Reality. It's just one theory. It certainly isn't the end of the discussion It certainly doesn't preclude additional metaphysical discussion, unless you have proof that Materialism is true.

I've told why, even if there really is Materialism's objectively, fundamentally existent concrete physical world, it would be a superfluous, unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact.

It's generally agreed that a theory like that isn't very convincing, especially when there's an alternative proposal that doesn't have any of those faults..

The sentiment expressed in the above-quoted passage sounds like Science-Worship, a popular faith-based position.

Academic philosophy seems to favor a belief in complete indeterminacy in regards to metaphysics. Conveniently, that allows for unlimited and interminable debate on all metaphysical positions, with the endless publication that that implies. Well, that's understandably-motivated, given the academic saying, "Publish or Perish".

But, at the same time, while still keeping their options always open for endless publication, academic philosophers seem to be emphasizing and favoring Materialism, or at least implying something that sounds like it, maybe usually under a variety of more fashionable names. That's because science has been so successful in its area of applicability, that there's a natural tendency to believe in it as a metaphysics--hence Science-Worship. The success of science in its legitimate area of applicability confers a perceived greater "respectability" for Science as a metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff

Saying “You’re in a life for a good reason” isn’t the best way to say what I meant. I meant something more like “We’re in life due to an explainable cause that was unavoidable at the time.”
.
I can’t prove that there’s reincarnation, and I’m not entirely sure that there is. It seems to me that there likely is, because it’s metaphysically-implied, making it seem more likely than the alternative theory that there’s just one life.
.
Anyway, because the Eastern philosophers’ metaphysics has a lot more validity than the Materialism of the Science-Worshippers who say there’s only one life, that makes the Eastern philosophers more credible regarding the matter of reincarnation.
.
But, whether there is or not, either way, I claim that our being in a life is the result of who we were, and that it would be meaningless to speak of the person without the start of this life or sequence of lives.
.
(And, whether there’s reincarnation or not, it’s possible and convenient to say things like “end of lives”, “sequence of lives”, etc., even if there’s only one of them. It would then just be a “sequence” consisting of only one life.)
.
The matter of the advisability or inadvisability of the start of this sequence of lives is a moot point now. Having started, it will continue, either to the end of this life, or to life-completion after many lives.
.
Anyway, my point was just that it’s profoundly unrealistic to reject life, and that a life-rejecting-attitude doesn’t help any, and just worsens things, whether there’s reincarnation or not.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"Shit happens; then you die. Spread some fun and kindness.
Only with these axioms can you fully enjoy your life and make it better for others, whilst they exist". — charleton
— TheMadFool

Of course that's good advice, regardless of what, if any, metaphysics you subscribe to. ...and whether or not there's reincarnation.

[quoting]

Mad Fool continues:

Indeed that is the best option. Metaphysics is a dud.

Metaphysics doesn't determine, decide or change Charlton's advice quoted above.

Are you saying that makes metaphysics "a dud"?

If you want to discuss something physically practical, then discuss engineering (or maybe physics, because it informs engineering) instead of metaphysics.

Definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics.Some people aren't interested in it. Maybe you're one such. That's fine. I recommend engineering.

Michael Ossipoff

Reincarnation is only a side issue. Buddha had some sense to talk. The after life shit is still irrelevant.
Even if it is true, since you don't remember your past lives — charleton

You won't.

...it's just as if you just die.

If you're reincarnated, you won't know that. You won't remember a past life.

If you instead go into the deep-sleep at the end of lives, you won't know that either, because you won't know that there ever was, or could be, such a thing as a life, body, person, identity, time, or events.

But, as a matter of fact, your experiences with those two outcomes will be different from eachother, even though you won't know that one of them happened.

So no real change.

I'd say that the fact that you won't know what happened doesn't mean that your experience is the same, with those two different outcomes.

Most everyone, including me, who believes that reincarnation probably happens, agrees that only a very, very few people are life-completed enough to reach the sleep at the end-of-lives at the end of this life. In other words, then, reincarnation will be the outcome for pretty-much everyone at the end of this life.

No, I can't prove that there's reincarnation, but, as I've mentioned before, it's implied by an uncontroversial meta[hysics.

I like the discussion of metaphysical issues, but I'm not saying that it's important to convince anyone about a particular metaphysics or metaphysical conclusion.

Michael Ossipoff

Part 2 of Reply:
.
You said:
.

It goes back to the idea of what makes me "me". Can I ever be otherwise? Is that even a legitimate question? I don't think it is.

.
Probably not, because it depends on what is meant. There’s a sense in which each of us is the same system that we were at the earlier age, like that ship whose parts were all replaced, one at a time, But I don’t even know the person that I was as a child, or even a teenager. I know what some of my values and concerns were, and where I probably got them, but I have no idea how I justified them. I probably never questioned them, but I’m not that person who didn’t, and I don’t know that person.
.

If I was not me, there is/was/will be no me. However, the possibility of a person can be projected, though this is not the same as the possibility can be actualized by just any birth-related event. It would have to be that birth related event to be me.

.
There’s no need to say that you’re the same person as before. To me, and some others, “actual” just means “in, or part of, or consisting of, the possibility-world in which the speaker resides”.
.
So, from your point of view, you and your surroundings are actual, and it couldn’t be otherwise. By my metaphysics, and by Materialism too, there’s no “You” other than the one that is in this life, because that’s what “You” means.
.
But if someone, somewhere, built an exact duplicate of you, that wouldn’t be you. It would just be someone just like you. I think that’s what you were referring to above.
.
I’d said:
.

Have you ever had the experience of waking from a dream in which you knew something that was really important,and really, indescribably, good, but not remembering what it was?

.
A number of people report that experience. Spiritual teachers say that it wasn't a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep, and experiencing a rare memory of it.

.
You replied:
.

Possibly. But this just speaks to the fact that, every night, people mostly look forward to this blissful state of conscious-nothingness. Unfortunately for me, I'm a bad sleeper, so rarely experience this.

.
But we ordinarily experience it without remembering it later. A memory of it is rare. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t experienced.
.

I'd say that is the ideal state. No stress, no decisions, no suffering, just purely existing.

.
Yes. And I’ve been claiming that it’s the most natural, normal, usual state of affairs for us all, because it’s the final, concluding part of our lives, and is timeless.
.
I don’t guarantee that it will be reached at the end of this[ life, because I believe that there’s probably reincarnation, and that nearly all of will be reincarnated.
.
…because, if the reason why you’re in a life continues to obtain at the end of this life (you’ll be a different person then than you were at the beginning of this life), then the person who you are then will be in a starting-out life again.
.
But if reincarnation happens, that’s because it’s the right and best outcome to follow this life.
.
The traditions that speak of reincarnation say that, after some finite number of lives, a person will be life-completed, and won’t have the needs, wants, inclinations, predispositions, etc., that lead to incarnation. That’s when the end-of-lives is. I agree.
.
For nearly all of us, that end-of-lives is many lifetimes away.
.
You said:
.

Yes, [in deep sleep]the brain is doing "something". It is not complete physical-nothingness. However, it is very close to conscious-nothingness.

.
Yes, and so there could be experience of it, or at least of the time when when the consciousness of ordinary (not deep) sleep is beginning to return, …hence there sometimes (rarely) being a memory of it.
.
In the deep-sleep at the end of lives, the state of Nothing is being approached, but not reached. Because the time of no-experience is never reached, then by definition, what precedes it is experienced.
.
It’s a time of no awareness of (even the possibility of) person, body, identity, time or events. …or difficulties, problems, fears, needs, wants, or incompletion of any kind.
.

As with birth, what is the point of experiencing at all? What are we really trying to do here in waking life with all this instrumentality of the everyday?

.
I think I have an answer to that:
.
The point or reason why this life began is that the story-protagonist who is like the person you subconsciously were at the beginning of this life , was someone who had the needs, wants, inclinations or predispositions for life. You’re in a life because you wanted &/or needed it, or were inclined toward or predisposed to it.
.
It’s a hypothetical story, a life-experience story, and there timelessly is one such story whose protagonist is just like you…who is you….as you were at the beginning of this life.
.
…and, unless you’ve become fully life-completed during this life, it’s a certainty that what I said in the previous 2 paragraphs will remain true at the end of this life. At the end of this life, as someone different from the person you were at the beginning of this life, but who still has the attributes stated in the previous 2 paragraphs, you’ll again be in the beginning of a life. …because, just as before, you’re the protagonist of one of the infinitely-many life-experience possibility-stories.
.
So that’s why I say, you’re in a life for a good reason. So like it.
.
Yes, I’ve completely written off this world’s chances for improvement, and written off any chance that the inhabitants of this “Land of the Lost” are at all capable of anything better.
.
Nevertheless, we’re in life for a reason, and this is the world that we for some reason qualified for, and it’s too late to second-guess that, because it’s just who we were. We must just own-up-to it. And so, being here, we can simply do our best, do what we like, have the life that we like, try to be ethical, non-harmful, and helpful while here. …and try to have a peaceful life, staying out of the way of the rulers.
.
We have no choice in that matter.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Part 1 of Reply:
.
I’d said:
.

Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. Well, you're in a life because you're the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. Therefore, it would be quite meaningless to speak of the person distinct from the life. The person, by his/her very nature, is in the life.

.
You replied:
.

Can you prove this?

.
I think so, for my metaphysics and for Materialism. I can’t prove that Materialism’s objective fundamentally existent world doesn’t exist, superfluously, as an unverifiable, unfalsiable brute-fact, alongside of and duplicating the events and relations of, the logical system that I describe. But doesn’t Materialism say that you’re the result of your surroundings, and that they’re metaphysically prior to you?
.
If some other metaphysics, maybe some Spiritualism or Dualism, is true , then, within that Spiritualism or Dualism, I guess there’d be a soul or spirit, completely independent of hir life and body. So, admittedly, in such a metaphysics, the statement that you asked if I can prove wouldn’t be true.
.
So it depends on the metaphysics. I can’t prove that a Spiritualism or Dualism isn’t true, obtaining indistinguishably and superfluously, unverifiably and unfalsifiably, alongside, and duplicating the events and relations of, the logical system of abstract facts that I describe.
.
But I appeal to Ockham’s Principle of Parsimony to disqualify, as good explanations, metaphysicses that need assumptions or brute-facts, when there’s one that doesn’t.
.

I can see what you mean in a "possible worlds" scenario but that is not quite the same as a soul migrating to different bodies.

.
Reincarnation? In my metaphysics, the possibility-world that you live in is just the setting for your life-experience possibility-story, and is secondary to it.
.
You and your surroundings are the two complementary non-independent halves of that life-experience possibility-story, a story about your experience.
.
Souls aren’t part of my metaphysics. It isn’t a Spiritualism or Dualism.
.
But my uncontroversial metaphysics implies reincarnation.
.
I’m going to send this now, rather than delay it more.
.
Part 2 will be along tomorrow.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

But, if logic and mathematics are the same for everyone, everywhere, anytime, even in other universes or possibility-worlds, then doesn't that mean that there must be a meaningful sense in which they "are there", independent of minds? How else could they be the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen.

.
You replied:
.

Maybe I'm reading too much into what you said about "independent", excuse me if I am... I don't see how systems like mathematics and logic are either external (an interpretation of your use of 'independent') or internal. To me they have to do with the intelligibility (being) in which we dwell. But not 'in' in an internal/external sense, but 'in' in a meaningful sense as in for example, 'in the moment', 'in a pleasant mood' or 'involved in the activity of'.

.
Yes, I express that by sayings that they’re parts of your experience.
.
I suggest that the person and hir (his/her) surroundings are complementary halves of a system—the complex system of inter-referring if-then facts that I call a life-experience possibility-story. …a story about that person’s experience.
.
If the ratio of a circle’s circumference to its diameter is the same here as in the Andromeda galaxy, and is also the same in the far reaches of this universe, far beyond the edge of the observable universe, even so far away that the physical-constants are different. …and even in different universes physically-related to ours. And even in hypothetical entirely separate possibility-worlds. (…but we can leave out the latter, if anyone objects to discussing them.)
.
We could get a radio message from a distant “solar-system”, and find that the message includes a binary expression of the number pi. Other than the surprisingness of someone being out there at all, there’d be nothing surprising about their knowing about pi.
.
Everyone expects pi to be the same everywhere in Euclidean space.
.
If that fact about the ratio of a circles circumference to its diameter is true in all those diverse contexts…
.
…and the fact “If all dogs are (or were) mammals, and all mammals are (or were) animals, then all dogs are (or would be) animals” is true in all of those diverse contexts (even where there are no dogs or mammals)…
.
…and if the fact “If the additive associative axiom is true, then 2+2=4 (…where 1, 2, 3, & 4 are defined in the obvious way based on the multiplicative identity and addition)” is true in all of those diverse contexts…
.
(I’m not saying that all of those things have been observed in all those contexts, but it’s what everyone expects to be so.)
.
Now suppose that Sam Spade or Philip Marlowe is investigating that fact.
.
He says, “Wait a minute. Is this all just a big coincidence, or is there possibly a connection here? Evidently those abstract facts have some kind of universal truth that’s entirely independent of minds, experiencers. Otherwise, why and how would they be true in all of those diverse contexts, without a really improbable coincidence?”
.
I don’ t propose an interpretation or explanation of the nature of the universal truth of those universal abstract facts, other than that they’re universal.
.

Even though mathematics and logic do not necessarily give intelligibility to the majority of activities and entities we find ourselves involved with in our daily lives, as systems they give intelligibility to their respective mathematical and logical entities.

.
Of course, Mathematics, logic and the details of physics theories might not be what our usual experience is about. But when we look at or check-out such things, we find a mostly consistent story.
.
When there’s a seeming inconstancy, such as Olber’s paradox, the Michaelson-Morely experiment result, the black-body energy-wavelength curve, or the planet Mercury’s seemingly anomalous rotation of apsides, new physics later resolved the seeming inconstancy. A current seeming inconsistency that has yet to be explained/resolved is the acceleration of the recession-speeds of the more distant galaxies.
.
In a broader sense, of course physics is full of things that aren’t explained (explanations that, themselves, call for explanation), and some say that it will always remain open-ended.
.
But we still find a tendency for consistency in our experience. If you left your shoes under your bed, and they aren’t there, then someone must have moved them, You know that they didn’t just cease to be there without someone moving them, because you expect consistency of experience.
.
I suggest that the consistency results from the fact that it’s an experience-story consisting of if-then facts. Mutually inconsistent propositions aren’t facts.
.

For example, Pi is intelligible only upon the basis of a system of mathematics, and without such a basis it is completely unintelligible, nothing.

.
Perhaps our main disagreement is based in this? That you want to 'metaphysically' claim that something 'internal' is somehow 'external', whereas I simply don't see the phenomena of mathematics and logic in an internal/external way.

.
I’m just saying that it isn’t possible to avoid the conclusion that certain abstract facts have some kind of universality, because how else do you explain our agreed-upon expectation of their being true in such diverse contexts?
.
External to experiencers? Yes. How else?
-----------------------------------
P.S.
.
I guess you could say that all of this is just in my experience (and your experience too) anyway, including the expected (based on experience), but not observed, truth of those abstract facts in those far-away contexts. But there remains something different, for universal abstract facts, compared to less universal things such as laws of physics.

The expected consistency of our experience, if extended to what we could only hypothetically observe (but other possibility-worlds can’t be observable to us even in principle), requires those abstract facts to be true in all those contexts.
.
Is that the form of the objection that you mean? It might be a good objection. It hadn’t occurred to me before.
.
Anyway, because my metaphysics is about experience-stories, the matter of whether abstract facts are independent of experiencers doesn’t count as an objection to my metaphysics. I just brought it up as a separate issue. …maybe one that I hadn’t looked at thoroughly enough.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Given that we exist, it seems impossible for nothing to have existed at any point. — CasKev

Yes, .as affairs are now, there are definitely timeless abstract facts. There never was just Nothing and never could be.

Well,some people want to say that it could have been otherwise, or ask why there's something instead of nothing, My answer has to do with the fact that a system of abstract if-then facts is quite independent of and isolated from anything outside its own local inter-referring system.

So I don't think it makes sense to say that there could have been only Nothing, with no abstract facts or local systems of inter-referring facts, because abstract facts don't depend on some global permission for them. They don't need a global medium, like some kind of potting-soil.

In other words, there's no such a thing as a global medium or context in which could obtain a fact that says that there are no other facts other than that fact that there are no other facts. Such a fact couldn't have any global authority or jurisdiction, because there's no global inter-relating medium for it, For all would-be facts to be banned by one fact, or to (together) not be, would require that they have some relation among eachother. But they don't.

Is it possible that consciousness persists

I suggest that, each individual corresponds to a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, of which s/he is the protagonist. Those stories are timeless, and inevitable. ...an infinite number of them. Each of them independently "is".

Each such story is a complementary system that includes an experiencer and the surroundings in hir (his/her) experience.

, and that it is as though it is immediately reborn as soon as it dies?

I'd say yes. At the end of your life, if the reason why this life started still remains, then wouldn't a life begin again, for the same reason? This life started because you're the protagonist in one of the infinity of timeless life-experience possibility-stories. At the end of this life, your remaining subconscious attributes, inclinations, predispositions, could mean that you're again the protagonist of one of the life-experience possibility-stories. ...not the same one as before, of course, because, by that time you won't be exactly the same person as before.

Since there would be no experience in a state of nothingness, there would be no sense of time passing.

Time, a common time-scale, doesn't apply between lives.

But i don't think we reach, or even get close to Nothing, between lives.

It seems that the person who will be reincarnated is someone who still has the subconscious wants, needs, or at least inclinations or predispositions for life. Someone who is so life-completed that s/he no longer has such predispositions and inclinations, might be someone who. during the unconsciousness at the end of a life, wouldn't have a cause for the start of a next life, and would approach Nothing as the body's shutdown continued. ...reaching the timeless stage when there really is no memory or knowledge that there was or could be life, identity, events or time.

Michael Ossipoff

"i suggest that abstract facts don't depend on the experiencer. Otherwise, why is it that logic and mathematics would be the same everywhere--in any country, on any continent, on any planet, in any universe?" — Michael Ossipoff


Nevertheless, you haven't shown that logic and mathematics are ultimately not derived from us and our shared understanding of being. All you have shown is that logic and mathematics are not relative to one's specific culture. The same is true of physics, biology, and some people suggest this of the virtues, etc. — bloodninja

But, if logic and mathematics are the same for everyone, everywhere, anytime, even in other universes or possibility-worlds, then doesn't that mean that there must be a meaningful sense in which they "are there", independent of minds? How else could they be the same for everyone, everywhere, everywhen?

That isn't true of physics.

Tegmark says that, even within our Big-Bang Universe, the constants of physics might be different in different distant regions, So physics would be different. Different possibility-worlds could have entirely different laws of physics.

It seems that mathematics and logic are derivative of a primordial phenomenon, our shared understanding of being.

For the reasons stated above, logic and mathematics seem independent of understanders.

Or are you suggesting that mathematics and logic are this shared understanding of being?

I claim that logic--abstract if-then facts in particular--are the basic metaphysical element in metaphysical worlds such as the infinitely-many hypothetical individual life-experience possibility-stories.

The only metaphysical element that could be called more basic, would be Nothing itself, the quiescent background of the abstract facts and systems of them.

Michael Ossipoff

1. Samsara is the realms of existence. I'm not sure but there are supposedly 6 realms - gods, demigods, humans, hungry ghosts, and hell. — TheMadFool

You only named 5. Did you leave out Heaven?

My understanding is that Heavens and Hells are said to be temporary experiences before reincarnation.

I don't know what metaphysical mechanism or support there is for the notion of incarnations other than those in worldly life.

According to Buddhism we're born and reborn in these 6 realms depending on our Karma (see below)

2. Karma or the law of Karma decides our birth and circumstances of our lives. Karma basically means good actions are rewarded with good lives and bad actions are punished with pain. So, being born in heaven is due to our good karma and suffering in hell is due to bad karma.

What I'm about to say is nothing more than a corollary of the two Buddhist beliefs I outlined above.

According to 1 and 2 we've been born countless number of times in Samsara.

Who says? Who says how many lives you've lived. They say it's a finite number of times, and I agree. The number of lives before one's end-of-lives ls likely to be large.

But I claim that the matter of whether you've lived past lives is completely indeterminate (not just unknowable). It isn't true that either you have or haven't.

Each time we're born we have parents, siblings, friends AND enemies and this has been repeating until our present lives.

Well, if all the above is true, then each person in our world has been a parent, a friend, a relative i.e
someone we love, trust and nurture. But, by the same token, each person has also been an enemy - someone we hate, fear and harm.

Those things don't follow. Who says that the people in your world in this life were in previous lives of yours?

Michael Ossipoff

Forget the theism/atheism debate here. I ask everyone, theists and atheists: does the concept of a being from before time creating everything make sense? If so, why? If not, why? — Starthrower

The notion of God as a "being", and the notion of "creation" are anthropomorphic.

Michael Ossipoff

The deep sleep at the end of lives is an arrival into Nothing (but we never experience the absence of experience).

...comfortable, restful, peaceful.

...but, knowing your position regarding life, I should emphasize that one can't regard the end as the whole desideratum (though I claim that it's the most natural, normal and typical part of our experience--and arguably Nothing is the most real element of metaphysics.).

If a person regards life as a matter of waiting for the end of life, then his/her death won't be better than his/her life.

Rajneesh pointed that out. Whatever anyone might think of him, in some regards, he still said some good things.

Nisargadatta said that birth is a calamity. Well, you're in a life because you're the protagonist in one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. Therefore, it would be quite meaningless to speak of the person distinct from the life. The person, by his/her very nature, is in the life.

If there's reincarnation (and I believe that there probably is), then you'll probably be in subsequent additional lives too..

...with the end-of-lives occurring only for the rare life-completed person.

...a rather fearsome proposition, given what we know about this world. But maybe other worlds aren't like this one. Anyway, maybe lives will be easier if we don't take them so seriously, interpreting them in the spirit of Lila..

But, returning to the topic of deep-sleep:

Have you ever had the experience of waking from a dream in which you knew something that was really important,and really, indescribably, good, but not remembering what it was?

A number of people report that experience. Spiritual teachers say that it wasn't a dream. They say that you were waking from deep-sleep, and experiencing a rare memory of it.

Michael Ossipoff

Deep sleep is close to nothing as far as perception in the living human. — schopenhauer1

It's as close to Nothing as anyone could ask for.

Michael Ossipoff

Would you agree that facts are derivative? — bloodninja

I regard inevitable abstract facts as the basis of metaphysical reality. (...but not of overall Reality, which isn't explainable, describable discussable, arguable or provable.).

The person (or other animal), and hir surroundings together constitute a complementary system. ...a life-experience possibility-story consisting of complex system of inter-referring abstract facts about hypotheticals.

That logical system is independent of anything else, and doesn't need to be "real" or "existent" in any context other than its own inter-referring context. ...and doesn't need any larger context or medium in which to be.

People express an issue about whether there could be abstract facts without observers. That issue doesn't affect this metaphysics, because it's about a system of abstract facts that includes an experiencer, and which, in fact, is about that experiencer's experience.

But, just as a matter of fact, i suggest that abstract facts don't depend on the experiencer. Otherwise, why is it that logic and mathematics would be the same everywhere--in any country, on any continent, on any planet, in any universe?

(Sure, different societies would investigate some different (and some same) parts of mathematics.)

Michael Ossipoff

Sorry about the delay, but I wanted to be more specific this time.
.
I’d said:
.

I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.

.
You replied:
.

So what do you have in common then?

.
The feeling that’s behind the allegory.
.
(…a feeling felt by some, but not all Theists)
.
But of course I don’t deny that there are plenty of Theists, of the door-to-door aggressive, abusive, arrogant variety, whose only feeling is their feeling of dogmatic superiority. We’re all familiar with them, and have encountered their rudeness. I have nothing in common with them.
.
Call it “cherry-picking”, but it’s some, but not all, Theists that I have something in common with.
.
Many or most, but not all, Atheists are Materialists, and believe that science covers, describes, and applies to, all of Reality. In contrast, I claim that the workings of the physical world isn’t all of what’s discussable, describable and arguable, much less all of Reality. Metaphysics is about what else is discussable and arguable, regarding what is.
.
I know I’ve already said this, but I don’t think that physics and metaphysics cover all of Reality, because not all of Reality is explainable, describable, discussable, definable, arguable or provable.
.
As I mean that word, Theism is a type of felt conclusion, attitude, feeling, impression or belief about that non-describable aspect of Reality. But, regarding what isn’t arguable or provable, “belief “ can be a misleading word.
.
It isn’t possible to be clearer about what I mean without more detail. Somewhere in this posting, I’ll be more specific. I’ve looked for that Hegel thread that I spoke of, but haven’t re-found it yet, so I don’t know exactly how much I said there, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.

…but whilst it has given me a clearer understanding of your beliefs, it has not explained why you think they're closer to biblical-literalists than atheists.

.
Not all Biblical-Literalists. It depends on their attitude. But, regarding some of them, their anthropomorphic allegorical beliefs don’t seem so important, compared to their feeling about indescribable Reality.
.

It seems a bizarre, and incredibly arbitrary use of the word 'theist' to say that the common feature is that you all use the word 'God' to define the non-material force/entity/experience of widely differing properties.

.
It isn’t the use of the word “God” that gives them something in common with me. The aggressive Theists that I mentioned above use that word too, as do many scientists and science-writers discussing things in physics (as you mentioned).
.
It’s just that what’s said by some Theists, even allegory-believing ones, about their impressions, sounds familiar, rings true.
.

Scientists could just as easily have decided that the Higgs-Boson was what they call 'God' (in fact I think it was even called the god particle for a while), making all scientists theists as well.

.
Sure, now I agree that we should call them that when they say that. Should the word “Theist” be interpreted broadly enough to include the scientists and science-writers who want to apply the word “God” to something in physics? Why not? If the rude, abusive and arrogant door-to-door Biblical-Literalist promoters are called Theists, when why not the science-writers too? I’d be agreeable to that.
.
…though neither are what I really consider Theists.
.
Definitions are a MF.
.

I'm unaware of any other proper noun where normal use is for the speaker to simply apply it to whatever they wish to fall into that definition, rather than have it define some collection of things already found in human discourse.

.
A widely used and misused word. To me, the valid use of the word God, is its use by what might be called Philosophical (or non-allegorical/non-anthropmorphic)Theists (…though the word “God” is much used by Atheist philosophers too.). …even though I don’t usually use that word, because it seems to still have some anthropomorphic implication.
.

We don't decide whatever we think falls into the category 'tree' and get to talk with others expecting that definition to mean something to them. 'God' is already a word that defines certain propositions, it's quite a wide definition, and certainly takes in some non-material aspects, as well as the very anthropomorphic version, but that doesn't mean we can just apply the word to any metaphysical proposition and expect to be understood.

.
Of course, which is why I don’t use that word, except when replying to, referring to, or quoting people who use it.
.

You said
.
"No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.".

So how come you're able to apply the word 'god' to whatever metaphysical (or meta-metaphysical, if you like) position you see fit

.
I don’t. Though I call myself a Theist, I don’t usually use the word God.
.
…though I realize that “Theist” is derived from a word for God. I feel that there’s validly something behind what some people mean when they refer to God.
.
It’s true that I’m using “Theist” in a way different from how it’s usually meant. But I’m using it for what I feel is what’s valid behind what’s usually called “Theism”. To me, Theism isn’t the dogmas and allegories.
.
I and others like me don’t promote or proselytize, and so the only “Theism” that is well-known is that of the preachy allegory-promoters. …and so they get to define the words.
.

, but say with absolute certainty that I can't apply it to unknown forces in physics?

.
I shouldn’t say that.
.
Well, it would have a different meaning, but sure, why not? It already has overbroad meaning. As I mentioned, I wouldn’t object to scientists and science-writers being called “Theists”, when they use the word “God” to refer to something in physics—as they sometimes do. Maybe then they’d be more careful about their language. The word “Theist” is already used so broadly as to lose its meaning, so why not broaden it further, in co-operation with people whose language calls for it?
.
So yes, the usage and definitions of “Theist” are mutually contradictory and not very useful, no doubt about it. I use “Theist” to refer to someone who expresses certain impressions or feelings about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. But that’s just my usage.
.

What aspect of the definition of 'god' are you invoking to make such claims?

.
I don’t usually use that word, and I don’t have an exact definition, but, to me, a valid meaning for God would refer to the subject of a certain kind of impression or feeling that some people express about Reality beyond physics and metaphysics. …an impression of gratitude for the Good-ness of what-is. … an impression of Good as the basis of what-is.
.
(As regards the latter, someone here quoted a well-known Greek philosopher, maybe Aristotle or Plato, as expressing that. I’ve heard that from a modern philosopher too, but I don’t remember his name.)
.
…though, as I said, I don’t usually use the word God, because I feel that it has some anthropomorphic implication.

.

This whole thread is about dishonest philosophy and I find this kind of language game to be an example of this. As you said, quite rightly, it's all too easy for disagreements to arise simply out of poor definition of terms - 'god', 'belief', 'theist', but the way to avoid that is not only to define your terms first, it is to make some attempt to stick to previously agreed definitions, to not deliberately stray too far from the fuzzy boundaries that previous language use has defined for a word.

.
I don’t intend any dishonesty. Admittedly I use “Theist” with a definition of my own, but only because I feel that it better expresses Theism’s valid element. It’s as if people were calling walnut-shells “walnut”, and dictionaries had begun to define “walnut” as walnut-shells, and all the discussion about walnuts were about the merits of eating walnut-shells.
.
There are times when we disagree with the dictionary and standard usage.
.
Anyway, “God” and “Theism” are already used super-broadly.
.
Well, when I describe my Theism, I try to avoid controversial or contradictorily-used terms.
.
(…other than the word “Theism” itself—It’s just that sometimes it’s necessary to choose between named categories, so you try to choose the closest one.)
------------------
As I was saying, I don’t know how much I said at the “Hegel’s religious writings” thread, and so I might repeat some of it here.
.
I’ve posted about my metaphysics in many thread-discussions, where metaphysical questions came up. Let me paste here my reply to someone’s objection to my metaphysics, in which I spoke of (my impression about) its meta-metaphysical implications.
.
I’m not saying that metaphysics is necessarily the only thing that leads to the good conclusion. And maybe the conclusion that I describe is already known to you.
.
Anyway, this pasted post is from the currently-active “What is Nothing?” thread:
.
Here’s the post with the objections and reply:
.
I’d said:
.

that end [the sleep at the end of lives] is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.

.
You replied:
.

But how can it be more "natural" for us when we are not, or are no longer? I mean, death is when we cease being the entities that we are. We cease being an entity altogether. We are no longer.

.
No, I haven’t been talking about that time. The time when you’ve completely shut-down won’t be experienced by you. For you, there’s no such time. The time when you’re gone will be experienced only by your survivors.
.
You’ll never experience a time without experience.
.
I was referring to the sleep at the end of lives (or at the end of this life if you don’t believe in reincarnation).
.
What makes the sleep at the end of lives more natural and normal, is the fact that it’s your final outcome, your final state of affairs, and is timeless.

.
You continued:
.

And "Natural" surely only applies to living entities that are. Entities that are not, are no longer part of the natural world. Therefore death cannot be "more natural" for us since in death we are not entities.

.
See above.
.

Moreover, sleep is only ever something we do, or something that happens to us, when we are.

.
…and I was talking about sleep, when we still are.
.
Of course, it’s a time when we’re approaching Nothing. But we won’t know that, because, as I said, by then we won’t know that there ever were, or could be, such things as worldly life, body, identity, time or events. The impending gradual end will be quite meaningless and irrelevant, because we won’t know or care about it.
.

So I think it is misleading to use it as a metaphor for death. It could lead to unclarity.

.
I hope that, above in this post, I’ve clarified what I meant.
.
I’d said:
.

But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?

.
You replied:
.

Sorry I think you have the burden of proof here, not me.

.
I think not. I’ve told why.
.
If, as I’ve discussed, our experience is consistent with a hypothetical system of if-thens, and if you could interpret it either way, then which interpretation requires the assumption of a brute-fact?
.
Here’s what I said about that:
.
“Among the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
“There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
“You’re in a life because you’re the hypothetical protagonist of one of the infinitely-many hypothetical life-experience possibility-stories. …complex systems of inter-referring inevitable abstract facts about hypotheticals.
.
“I can’t prove that the concretely, objectively, fundamentally existent physical world of Materialism doesn’t superfluously exist, as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that system of inter-referring if-thens referred to above.”

.
It’s customarily agreed that brute-facts, unnecessary assumptions, and unverifiable unfalsifiable propositions are suspect."
.
You said:

.

The reason is that it is highly implausible that we experience life hypothetically and/or factually. Myself, and the people within my shared culture, experience the world in terms of familiarity and significance.

.
Of course. I didn’t mean to denigrate or deny suchness, presence, direct experience, etc.
.
You find out about the logical, factual matters when you check for them. …and, when you do, you’ll find that your experience is self-consistent. But I’m not implying that you spend all your time with logic, facts, etc.

.
I often emphasize that metaphysics is to experience and Reality, as a book on how a car-engine works is to actually taking a ride in the countryside.

.
Logic, and statements, descriptions or evaluations about facts, aren’t, and don’t describe, experience and Reality.

.
Logic, physics and metaphysics don’t cover, describe, or govern Reality.

.
But, though it isn’t all of Reality, and isn’t all of your experience, metaphysics is my topic here.

.
The fact that metaphysics isn’t everything doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t talk about it. I find it of interest.
.
Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed and described.
.
You said:

.

When I'm running for the train, for example, I do not think of a hypothetical or a fact. To do so I would first need to abstract from and reflect on the situation. There is never an experience like this. Instead I am completely caught up in the situation and this is grounded in my familiarity with catching trains. I know how to catch trains and know how to catch a train that I'm running late for. I am fully involved. I am the situation. In a sense there is no I, there is only the situation, when I am so fully involved.

.
Of course. No argument there. See above.

.
I’d said:
.
Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, then you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
You reply:
.

.
Again, this is not how we experience our world. Why? because the way you have expressed this, the roundabout is meaningless and abstracted from everyday experience. It has no significance. For example, someone who is lost and following directions does not go to 34th & Vine to encounter a roundabout, they go there only in order to get onto the road they need to get on to. It is significant to them for that reason. Or, someone who is familiar with the roundabout probably more readily experiences the frustrations of driving in traffic with idiots, or thinking about the discussion they had that morning with their partner, than their surroundings (including the roundabout) as such. Perhaps they are so utterly familiar with the roundabout and their drive to work that they don't even consciously notice it. This happens all the time for me in the flow of life. Notice that in this latter example the person went to 34th & Vine but didn't encounter a roundabout. At least not in a consciously aware factual manner (present-at-hand in Heidegger speak), which is what I take you to mean here by "encounter".

.
I have no disagreement with that. Sometimes you don’t experience the facts unless you’re looking for them. But, when you do, you’ll find facts that aren’t inconsistent with the other facts of your experience. That’s why your life is a possibility-story instead of an impossibility-story.

.
Philosophy, the topic of these forums, is about matters that are verbal, discussable, describable.
.
But I emphatically agree that Reality isn’t about logic, metaphysics or physics.
.
But explanations of the logical underpinnings and background of our lives are still of interest. …without any implication that they’re the complete explanation or background for Reality.
.
Whether or not any of us like it, we still deal with facts, states of affairs, situations. Their verbal explanation and logical factual background can be of interest. As humans, we deal with logical factual matters whether we like it or not. It’s only a matter of how we deal with it.
.
We can worry unnecessarily or excessively, when we take the facts too literally, believing in the “concrete” fundamental objective existence of the physical world. Obviously we must deal with the physical world, and take care of ourselves in that world, but we also tend to worry too much, unproductively, unnecessarily.
.
By the way, this protagonist that we are, of a life-experience possibility-story, is an animal, a purposely-responsive device designed by the events of natural-selection. Things can happen to us, and we all know that eventually something will happen to each of us. But we aren’t here for things to happen to. We’re merely designed to respond to our surroundings optimally for the goals set by natural-selection. So, if we’re doing our best, then that’s all that matters. So a Chinese writer once pointed out that anything is nullified if we do what we can to deal with it.
.
Subjectively, we do what we want, like or prefer. But, our choices and decisions aren’t really ours, or our problem, because (as one would expect for a purposefully-responsive device) those choices are determined for us by our wants, likes and preferences (inborn and acquired), and our surroundings,
.
I suggest that what I said in the two above paragraphs is relevant when events, choices or decisions erroneously seem a problem.
.
I’ve said this before, but let me say it again.

.
By the metaphysics that I propose, what is discussable and describable is insubstantial and ethereal. Of course we do our best, and, whether we admit it or not, we enjoy our lives. But this temporary life is insubstantial, so of course we just enjoy it while it lasts, while doing our best. Hence the Hindu emphasis on life as primarily “Lila”, play.
.

I suggest that this metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness. …in contrast to Materialism’s grim “objective” accounting.
.
So no, I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good.
.
Metaphysics is a verbal discussion about what logically, factually is. What factually is, is pretty good.
.
[end of pasted reply from other thread]
.
So it’s the impression, of me, and some others, that what-is, is pretty good, and inspires gratitude.
.
An impression that the whole overall metaphysical what-is, is very good—Is that different from an impression that Good is the character or basis of what-is?
.
These are impressions, or the same impression. But if your subjective impression is that something is good, then isn’t there a real sense in which it is good, as far as you’re concerned? So the distinction between impression and belief isn’t really so distinct.
.
…because none of this has anything to do with convincing anyone else.
.
And, if there’s an impression is that Good is the basis of what-is, then isn’t that really just another way of saying an impression that there’s good intent behind what-is?
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.

.
You replied:
.

People can't just declare themselves something and insist that the world changes its definitions to suit them.

.
Dictionaries report common usage. No one believes dictionaries to be the ultimate authority on right and wrong usage.
.
In fact, I’ll remind you that no finite dictionary can non-circularly define all of its words. …or any of them, for that matter.
.
I call myself a Theist because, in a meaningful sense, in comparison to Atheists, I have a lot more in common with some Theists who talk about God, even if some (but not all) of them use “exist” differently from how I do.
.
…though, as I said, I don’t use the name God unless I’m talking to, quoting, or referring to someone who does, and though I agree with those Theists who say that “exist” applies only to things and contingent beings, elements of metaphysics.
.
OED is useful as a general guide that reports the most common usage.
.

If you do not believe God 'exists' in the normal sense of the word, you are an atheist

.
“Exist” doesn’t even have a definite, consensus, metaphysical definition.
.

Either way, you do not believe 'god' exists. That is the definition of an atheist. You can't just change it because you'd prefer to be called a theist.

.
According to OED, I’m not a Theist. I’m glad that you’ve clarified your definition, because it means that your criticism isn’t about all whom I consider Theists. And I assume that many Atheists probably agree with you.
.
I don’t contend that one definition is more valid than another. It’s just a matter of clarifying definitions for communication purposes.
.
I’d said:
.

…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.

.
You replied:
.

No, it's because I consider it a logical nonsense to say you believe in something but be unable to define what it is. It simply doesn't make sense.

.
I agree that it doesn’t make any sense to try to apply logic and definitions to all of Reality. I and a lot of people at these forums believe that logic doesn’t describe, cover, or govern all of Reality, and that not all of Reality is knowable or definable.
.
That’s a belief about a Reality that isn’t definable.
.
If you believe otherwise, then you take a minority position at these philosophy forums.
.
But I pointed out that all Theists discuss what they mean by Theism, and all Theists who refer to God discuss what they mean by God.
.
I don’t know where you get the notion that Theists are unable to say what they’re talking about.
.
As for “define”, see above.
.

If you cannot define what it is

.
I’ve stated my Theism at other discussion-threads at these forums. I haven’t been secretive. I’ve told what I mean by Theism, as do all Theists.
.
What I said at those threads was very brief, because, as I’ve said, I believe that it’s not a knowable, describable or discussable topic.
.
But I’m not at this thread to advocate or present a religious position, or to convince anyone about Theism vs Atheism. To take this thread in that direction would be inappropriate and un-aesthetic.
.
But, to give you a better idea of what I’m talking about, without departing from the scope of this thread, I’ll just refer you to a thread of a few months ago. It was called something like “Hegel’s religious writings”, and it was at the Metaphyisics & Epistemology subforum, or at the General Philosophy subforum.
.
It won’t be difficult to find it. You’ll have to look at just a few back pages of those two subforums.
.
Additionally, that thread has links to web articles that will tell you more.
.

, what you have is a feeling or a sensation, not a belief.

.
I agree that feelings aren’t as easy to discuss as science, or Literalist religion.
.
I admit that not all of Reality lends itself to words.
.
I don’t have beliefs that oppose or contradict the feelings and impressions.
.
We’re talking about a region of Reality where it isn’t so easy to specify belief with logical precision, or sometimes even a clear-cut distinction between belief and impression or feeling.
.
I’d be glad to go into it more, to clarify my Theism (…as I have at other discussion-threads), but that would be outside the scope of this thread. This thread isn’t the place for such discussion. Check out the Hegel’s religious writings thread, and its links.
.

You are misusing the words 'theist' and 'belief' simply to dodge having to admit that you don't really believe in God. A 'theist' is someone who believes in the existence of god, a 'belief' is a propositional statement or functional attitude. If we can't stick to normal English how do you expect to maintain a discussion?

.
Certainly definitions need to be well-specified.
.
Now that you’ve specified the OED definition, I know what religions you’re referring to. Most likely other Atheists mean similarly by what they say.

I, too, don’t agree with all the details of those Theisms that OED refers to, though I find kinship with the sentiment behind them, which, to me, seems more relevant than those people’s allegorical beliefs--hence my self-designation as Theist.
.
(But I also realize that religion is sometimes just a social matter, often used (maybe subconsciously) as an “us-vs-them” way of achieving social cohesion by villainizing or excluding others. And of course religion has long been used as a cynical, dishonest social-control device. …as was pointed out by a famous Atheist in 1848. I don’t criticize Atheists for being Atheists, though I don’t agree with their Atheism.)
.

By your definition of 'Theism', I'm a theist too because I definitely don't think we've discovered every form of existence (there are probably at least seven more dimensions for a start)

.
No, you’re talking about physics. Of course it’s widely-agreed that there’s a lot of unknown physics. That doesn’t make you a Theist. Physics has nothing to do with Theism, by anyone’s definition.
.

By your definition of 'belief', I have beliefs that I can't define because I definitely have feelings and sensations that are not the result of logical thought

.
But if you say they aren’t beliefs, then they probably aren’t. Not if you have beliefs that supersede them.
.
Anyway, as I suspected, the Atheism/Theism disagreement is largely just definitional, meaning there’s a lot less disagreement between Atheists and non-literalist Theists than there might seem to be.
..
I think that we should, to the extent possible, find discussable, describable (physical or metaphysical) explanations.

Regarding Theism, I consider that to be meta-metaphysical rather than metaphysical. …because it seems to me that metaphysics is meant as the limit of what is explainable, discussable, describable, arguable, provable.
.
Michael Ossipoff

1. The "if" premise and "then" conclusion of an if-then fact aren't necessarily facts. If the "if " premise is a fact, then the "then" conclusion is a fact.

But the overall if-then fact can be reliably a fact, regardless of whether or not the premise is a fact.

2. You can call the "if" premise an assumption (of the if-then fact, but not of a proponent of the metaphysics) if you want to, But, even if so, it's only the if-then fact that uses that tentative assumption. The metaphysical proposal based on if-then facts doesn't make any assumptions.

Proposing that metaphysics, I don't assume or claim, or ask anyone to assume, that any of the "if " premises that I mentioned are true. In fact, I specifically said that none of them are objectively true. because metaphysical reality consists only of those hypothetical, abstract if-thens, and they're about things that have no objective existence.

So--far from assuming that all of the "if " premises are true--I'm saying that none of them are objectively true.

Want an example of a metaphysics that makes an assumption? Materialism assumes the objective, fundamental, existence of a physival world. Materialism assumes and believes in that physical world as what fundamentally is, the ground of all being. That's a brute-fact assumption.

My metaphysical proposal neither has nor needs any such assumption or brute-fact.

Do you see the distinction?

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.

.
You posted a definition:
.

Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods, specifically of a creator who intervenes in the universe." (OED).

.
Very good. That’s an improvement, because you’re saying that OED’s definition is your definition of Theism.
.
Let’s look at that definition:
.
“Theism - "Belief in the existence of a god or gods…”
.
On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who don’t believe that the word “existence” applies to God.
.
Existence is for beings and things. On the Internet, you can find articles by Theists who refer to God, but don’t consider God to be a being or a thing.
.
Some, but not all, Theists, and evidently all loud, aggressive Atheists, share the anthropomorphic belief that God is a being, and an element of metaphysics, subject to the distinction of “existence” vs “nonexistence”.
.
Martin Buber, for example, is a well-known writer who said that God isn’t described by that distinction.
.
I sometimes say that, for humans to debate whether God exists, is like for mice to debate whether humans gnaw hardwood or softwood.
.
Well, the God who is a being, and is described by that distinction, that’s your God.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…, specifically of a creator…”
.
“Creation” is an anthropomorphic notion—a notion belonging to the more dogmatic, doctrinaire literalist Theists, and to Atheists.
.
Your God, the God that you believe in disbelieving in, is the God of the Biblical Literalists.
.
Continuing the quoted definition:
.
“…who intervenes in the universe."
.
Ah yes, the distinction between “Theist” and “Deist”.
.
That distinction is meaningless unless you believe that God is within time.
.
I take it, then, that your God is a being who exists within time.
.
Well, thank you, Pseudo, for clarifying about your God.
.
I don’t believe in your anthropomorphic God.
.
Your definition of ”Theist” leaves out some self-declared Theists.
.
By your definition of “Theist”, I’m not a Theist, and neither are a number of self-declared Theists.
.
But it’s a definite step, your defining your God and your Theism.
.

Theists must either have no definition for this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are believing in something simply by name, which I find to be ludicrous

.
…because you devoutly believe that all of Reality is definable, verbally describable.
.
Of course all Theists who speak of God will also speak of what they mean.
.
But, as for a “definition”, if that’s what you want, then I’ll just refer you to the Biblical-Literalists (…whose God and whose Theism seem to be your God and your Theism).
.
I don’t speak of God, unless I’m talking to people who do, but I sometimes, at some threads of this forum, have discussed what I mean by Theism.
.

; or they claim some knowledge about the properties of this 'God' or 'Gods', in which case they are making knowledge claims. In this second case they have either postulated the existence of an entity which cannot be falsified where no such entity is required to explain the phenomenon we experience;

.
…and they’re the Theists whose God is your God.
.
or they have accused atheists of lying and presumed that we all have experiences which require explanations not yet covered by existing observable forces.
[/quote]
.
Only you know your experiences.
.

All three of these exhaustive options require the suspension of efficient critical thinking.

.
You believe too much in your “critical thinking”. I’ve been reminding you of some uncriticalness of some of your thinking.
.

The absence of [what Pseudo calls] effective critical thinking allows all sorts of false and harmful political messages to gain popularity.

.
Undeniably, willingness to uncritically believe what we’re told or taught, whether it be Biblical-Literalism, Atheism, Materialism, or Science-Worship, tends to also be found with uncritical belief in what we’re told or taught politically.
.
But there’s no justification for saying that religion, of whatever kind, causes political gullibility. Belief in dogmatic religion, and belief in dogmatic politics have a common reason, but that doesn’t mean that one causes the other.
.
Are you referring to the political conservatism promoted by some religious evangelists? Sure, religion is commonly used for that purpose. That’s been well-discussed ever since 1847 or 1848.

.

So yes, it is perfectly possible to criticise all theists, be cause all theists share some common features

.
…certain common features by your definition that you got from OED.
.

otherwise they would not be classifiable as a group.

.
…and now you’ve better-specified what group you’re referring to.
.
But, even within your OED definition, there are plenty of progressive Theists and progressive churches, and a rejection of gullible politics.
.
So even your criticism of your Theists, on political grounds, lacks validity.

.

You may well disagree with these criticisms, but it's ridiculous to suggest that I should enquire as to the nature of every single theistic belief in order to make any judgements about them

.
We definitely disagree about what it takes to justify sweeping claims. :D
.

with sufficient certainty to post on a philosophy forum. I can reach perfectly logical conclusions, with sufficient certainty to talk confidently about them simply from the fact that all theists believe in a god or gods. If they don't, they're not theists.

.
…and you will confidently do so, without knowing what they mean when they speak of God.
.
But, as you clarified (Thank you for clarifying it), you’re referring to a specific group defined by OED.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Everything is perfect but there is nothing that makes us wonder? -Could this statementt be true at all? — Vajk

No.

For one thing, as I told Bloodninja, facts, logic, physics and metaphysics don't cover, describe, or govern all of Reality.

In fact, even in the matters that metaphysics does describe, there's still wonder.

I've told a metaphysical explanation or reason for why you're in a life. Does that mean that there's nothing wonderous, remarkable or astonishing about the fact that you're in a life?

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

that end is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.

.
You replied:
.

But how can it be more "natural" for us when we are not, or are no longer? I mean, death is when we cease being the entities that we are. We cease being an entity altogether. We are no longer.

.
No, I haven’t been talking about that time. The time when you’ve completely shut-down won’t be experienced by you. For you, there’s no such time. The time when you’re gone will be experienced only by your survivors.
.
You’ll never experience a time without experience.
.
I was referring to the sleep at the end of lives (or at the end of this life if you don’t believe in reincarnation).
.
What makes the sleep at the end of lives more natural and normal, is the fact that it’s your final outcome, your final state of affairs, and is timeless.
.

And "Natural" surely only applies to living entities that are. Entities that are not, are no longer part of the natural world. Therefore death cannot be "more natural" for us since in death we are not entities.

.
See above.
.

Moreover, sleep is only ever something we do, or something that happens to us, when we are.

.
…and I was talking about sleep, when we still are.
.
Of course, it’s a time when we’re approaching Nothing. But we won’t know that, because, as I said, by then we won’t know that there are such things as worldly life, body, identity, time or events. The impending end will be quite meaningless and irrelevant, because we won’t know or care about it.
.

So I think it is misleading to use it as a metaphor for death. It could lead to unclarity.

.
I hope that, above in this post, I’ve clarified what I meant.
.
I’d said:
.

But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?

.
You replied:
.

Sorry I think you have the burden of proof here, not me.

.
I think not. I’ve told why.
.
If, as I’ve discussed, our experience is consistent with a hypothetical system of if-thens, and if you could interpret it either way, then which interpretation requires the assumption of a brute-fact?
.
Let me quote myself:
.
“Among the infinitely-many complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals, there inevitably must be one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
“There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.
.
“I can’t prove that the concretely, objectively, fundamentally existent physical world of Materialism doesn’t superfluously exist, as an unverifiable, unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside of, and duplicating the events and relations of, that system of inter-referring if-thens referred to above.”

It’s customarily agreed that brute-facts, unnecessary assumptions, and unverifiable unfalsifiable propositions are suspect."

The reason is that it is highly implausible that we experience life hypothetically and/or factually. Myself, and the people within my shared culture, experience the world in terms of familiarity and significance.

Of course. I didn’t mean to denigrate or deny suchness, presence, direct experience, etc.
You find out about the logical, factual matters when you check for them. …and, when you do, you’ll find that your experience is self-consistent. But I’m not implying that you spend all your time with logic, facts, etc.

I often emphasize that metaphysics is to experience and Reality, as a book on how a car-engine works is to actually taking a ride in the countryside.

Logic, and statements, descriptions or evaluations about facts, aren’t, and don’t describe, experience and Reality.

Logic, physics and metaphysics don’t cover, describe, or govern Reality.

But I’m talking about a metaphysics.

The fact that metaphysics isn’t everything doesn’t mean that we can’t or shouldn’t talk about it. I find it of interest.
Metaphysics is the limit of what can be discussed and described.

When I'm running for the train, for example, I do not think of a hypothetical or a fact. To do so I would first need to abstract from and reflect on the situation. There is never an experience like this. Instead I am completely caught up in the situation and this is grounded in my familiarity with catching trains. I know how to catch trains and know how to catch a train that I'm running late for. I am fully involved. I am the situation. In a sense there is no I, there is only the situation, when I am so fully involved.

Of course. No argument there. See above.

I’d said:

Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”

.
You reply:
.
Again, this is not how we experience our world. Why? because the way you have expressed this, the roundabout is meaningless and abstracted from everyday experience. It has no significance. For example, someone who is lost and following directions does not go to 34th & Vine to encounter a roundabout, they go there only in order to get onto the road they need to get on to. It is significant to them for that reason. Or, someone who is familiar with the roundabout probably more readily experiences the frustrations of driving in traffic with idiots, or thinking about the discussion they had that morning with their partner, than their surroundings (including the roundabout) as such. Perhaps they are so utterly familiar with the roundabout and their drive to work that they don't even consciously notice it. This happens all the time for me in the flow of life. Notice that in this latter example the person went to 34th & Vine but didn't encounter a roundabout. At least not in a consciously aware factual manner (present-at-hand in Heidegger speak), which is what I take you to mean here by "encounter".
[/quote]
.
I have no disagreement with that. Sometimes you don’t experience the facts unless you’re looking for them. But, when you do, you’ll find facts that aren’t inconsistent with the other facts of your experience. That’s why your life is a possibility-story instead of an impossibility-story.

Philosophy, the topic of these forums, is about matters that are verbal, discussable, describable.
.
But I emphatically agree that Reality isn’t about logic, metaphysics or physics.
.
But explanations of the logical underpinnings and background of our lives are still of interest. …without any implication that they’re the complete explanation or background for Reality.
.
Whether or not any of us like it, we still deal with facts, states of affairs, situations. Their verbal explanation and logical factual background can be of interest. As humans, we deal with logical factual matters whether we like it or not. It’s only a matter of how we deal with it.
.
We can worry unnecessarily or excessively, when we take the facts too literally, believing in the “concrete” fundamental objective existence of the physical world. Obviously we must deal with the physical world, and take care of ourselves in that world, but we also tend to worry too much, unproductively, unnecessarily.
.
I’ve said this before, but let me say it again.

By the metaphysics that I propose, what is discussable and describable is insubstantial and ethereal. Of course we do our best, and, whether we admit it or not, we enjoy our lives. But this temporary life is insubstantial, so just enjoy it while it lasts, and do your best.
.
I suggest that my metaphysics implies an openness, looseness, and lightness. …in contrast to Materialism’s grim “objective” accounting.
.
So no, I don’t mean to say that you always live in logic, facts, verbal description, etc. But, when you visit them, they aren’t as bad as you’ve been taught. In fact they’re pretty good.
.
Metaphysics is a verbal discussion about what logically, factually is. What factually is, is pretty good.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Pseudo says:
.

You're consistently repeating the same nonsense over and again;

.1. Atheists are not allowed to draw any conclusions about theists

.
Pseudo can draw conclusions about (specified) Theisms that he’s heard stated or asserted,. …but should tell specifically whom or what he’s talking about. That’s hardly too much to ask.
.

…because they have not met them all, nor listened to the exposition of every single one of them

.
See above.
.

…, whereas you are allowed to draw conclusions about atheists, psuedo-scientists, any group you don't like, based solely on your prejudice. 'Common' is still an unwarranted conclusion, by a long way.

.
But I’m not expressing criticisms, assumptions or evaluations of the beliefs of all Atheists. I’m not evaluating Atheism, as a belief, in general. And no, I’m not even evaluating the behavior of all Atheists. …just the loud aggressive no-manners ones who are so common at Internet forums. (Yes, common.)
.
That’s the difference that Pseudo is missing.
.
I’m not saying that all Atheists are loud, aggressive and rude. I wasn’t when I was an Atheist.
.

There are an estimated 500,000,000 atheists, at a standard 95% confidence, you would have to have experienced 9604 of them just to get a statistically significant sample. You have definitely not met enough atheists do define what is 'common', not even statistically, let alone accurately.

.
Well, “common” isn’t really a very precise term :D
.
Loud, aggressive, rude Atheist pseudoscientists pop-up continually at Internet forums. Not common? What else would Pseudo call that?
.
1. Only a small fraction of car-trips result in a car-accident.
.
2. Car-accidents are common.
.
What? How can that be?!!
.
Answer: Car-trips are even more common.
.
I didn’t speculate about what percentage of Atheists are the loud, aggressive, rude ones.
.
Merriam-Webster:
.
Common:
.
Occurring or appearing frequently.
.
[end of quoted definition]
.

2. You keep insisting that drawing conclusions based on a small sample is unnecessary because there is no harm in holding theistic beliefs of the type that I have encountered (my sample). This is subjective, if you want to argue about the potential harms from the theistic beliefs I have so far encountered, then lay out that argument.

.
Harm? Pseudo must go forth and save the multitudes from wrong-belief! :D
.
a) The person claiming the danger of harm is the one who needs to tell people what exactly he’s warning them about, and what is danger is.
.
b) If you’re referring to a particular limited sample, then specify, in particular, who your sample are, what beliefs it is whose danger you’re warning us of. Is that too much to ask of Psuedo? If he isn’t prepared to specify what he’s talking about, then he isn’t ready to warn us about it.
.

Just presuming that your conclusion on that matter must be right and so defeats my right to draw conclusions in [is?] unjustified as yet.

.
Yes, Pseudo’s conclusions are unjustified, because he doesn’t justify them by telling us specifically what he’s talking about.
.

3. I'm not sure why you keep insisting on using the word 'bigot'.

.
I used the word “bigotry” once, but then mentioned it again, when quoting a (specified) dictionary-definition of it, when Pseudo said that I’d mis-used that word.

It doesn't matter how you define it it never covers any of my behaviour.

.
…unless Pseudo presumes to speak for others about what they believe, or consistently fails to limit or specify to whom his blanket evaluations are intended to refer.
.

I am only obstinate in your opinion, because you think I should be adopting your views

.
I’ve never said that Pseudo should adopt my views. I’ve merely pointed out that aggressive Atheists need to be a lot more specific about what views they’re criticizing.
.
And I acknowledge that Pseudo renounces and disowns all of the statements, claims and positions that he’s been defending.
.

I'm not going to indulge you any further.

.
I agree that Pseudo has said (at least) enough. He’s had his say.
.
Conclusion:
.
Isn’t the solution obvious?:
.
Anyone who wants to evaluate or criticize a position needs to specify it.
.
For example, if Pseudo, or anyone else, wants to criticize Biblical-Literalism, then he needs to express that that’s what he’s referring to. How hard would that be?
.
But, though I don’t agree with the anthropomorphic allegorical literalist beliefs of many Theists, in particular the fully Biblical-Literalist ones, I don’t feel a need to criticize or evaluate them or their beliefs.
.
That’s something about the aggressive, on-the-attack, rude Atheist pseudoscientists, that I don’t understand, and which is entirely alien to me.
.
Nor do I feel a need to evaluate, criticize or attack the personal beliefs of Atheists. Their beliefs are their business, not mine.
.
Michael Ossipoff\

I’d said:
.

Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.

.
You replied:
.

Show me. Either quote me the passage from my posts that offered an explanation for their actions…

.
Alright. You’d said:
.

As usual with theist apologists that I've experienced, one gets even close to their fragile construct of the world and they fly off the handle.

.
That’s your interpretation, explanation, of the objections that you’ve heard from Theists—their objections to the common speculations of Atheists , regarding others’ beliefs.
.
Your “fragile construct” is a construct in your mind. You presume to know what others believe, and that’s what the objection is about
.
“Fly off the handle” translates to “express an objection”.
.
I’d said:
.

So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable

You replied:

If you read my sentence with any honesty you will see it clearly states that it is reasonable to argue that believing in something un-defined is not sensible.

.
What a coincidence. That’s what I thought you said.
.
If it is reasonable to argue that it is not sensible to believe in something that is un-defined, then it must be reasonable to argue that all that is sensible to believe in is definable and defined.
.

I have made no claims whatsoever about the set 'all that is sensible'.

.
See above.
.

The set I'm making claims about is 'all that is believed'. You really need to learn how to parse object-subject distinctions in normal sentences.

.
Only a mind-reader could “parse” or interpret your sloppiness.
.
Two separate things:
.
1. You’re saying it’s reasonable to argue that only what is defined is reasonable to believe in.
.
You’re thereby expressing a belief that it’s reasonable to argue that language, words, description apply to, cover, describe all of Reality.
.
That’s a typical thing to be said by a pseudoscientist of the Science-Worshipper variety.
.
2, You presumptuously believe that whatever hasn’t been defined to you must be undefined.
.
Anyone asserting their religion to you has a responsibility to define it for you. There are many Theists who don’t assert to you, and therefore haven’t defined to you, and have no reason to.
.
You don’t know anything about them or what they “believe”.
.
Because assertions need definitions, I merely point out that the loud pseudoscientists are spouting assertions without definitions (of the Theists or Theisms they're referring to when they make their their blanket assertions).
.

But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.

.
You replied:
.

So when stepping out in front of a moving train, you wouldn't get out of the way because your conclusion about what will happen next is only drawn from a limited source, after all, the proportion of the trains you've seen is tiny compared to the group of 'all trains'?

.
We’ve just been over that. I’ve just answered that fallacy.
.
If even about half of all trains might be dangerous to stand in front of, then it would be prudent to not stand in front of any train.
.
There are well-established physical laws that predict damage from standing in front of a train.
.
Your knowledge of the beliefs of all Theists has nothing approaching the reliability of those physical laws.
.
I’d said:
.

Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.

.

No it is not. That's why I provided you with a dictionary definition of 'Bigotry', so that you can stop misusing the word.

.
Oops! You forgot to share with us the name of the dictionary in which you found your definition :D
.
Here’s Merriam-Webster:
.
Bigot:
.
A person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own prejudices
.
[end of broad-definition-quote]
.
I’d said:
.

it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.

.
You replied:
.

And again, it's OK for you to make generalisations about atheists based on the ones you've experienced

.
Yes, because I’m merely saying that something is common.
.

, but not for me to draw conclusions about theists based on exactly the same metric.

.
No, not exactly the same “metric”.
.
I spoke of what’s common. That doesn’t require or imply a detailed knowledge of all Atheists.
.
On the other hand, when aggressive loud pseudoscientists express their blanket assumption about Theists in general, they’re making an all-inclusive claim.
.
I’d said:
.

without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.

.
You replied:
.

No, they think there is a necessity, you just don't agree with them. Most atheists that I have heard the arguments of think Theism is harmful because of the rejection of critical thinking that goes along with it.

.
(…based on your assumptions about all Theisms, and your belief in the universal applicability of your allegedly critical thinking.)
.
…so you’re saving people from something harmful. Then you aren’t just a pseudoscientist, You’re a fanatical evangelical pseudoscientist.
.
Oh wait, you didn’t say that—You’re just quoting others who say that. …and of course you don’t agree with them. :D
.

You may not agree, but it's disingenuous suggest they don't have a reason.

.
In their mind they might very well have a fanatical “reason”.

I have no objection to theistic metaphysics

.
.
My metaphysics isn’t Theistic.
.
It’s better to explain things verbally when possible. Of course not all of Reality is discussable or describable, but I regard metaphysics as the limit of what is discussable and describable.
.
As I define metaphysics, there are Theists who don’t regard God as an element of metaphysics.
.
Though it probably isn’t usually said, it’s my impression that it’s usually meant that metaphysics is a verbal topic. …about what is that is describable and discussable. It’s my impression that it’s understood that philosophy is discussable, and that metaphysics is philosophy.
.
So then, it seems to me that religion isn’t covered, described or governed by metaphysics (or physics or logic).
.
It seems, to me, to make more sense to not call religion part of metaphysics.
.
But I don’t object if you believe in Theistic metaphysics.
.

…, it is an entirely reasonable option. What I do object to is the deception that the possibility of such metaphysics somehow justifies a particular religion

.
…then you should be telling that to someone who is promoting a particular religion. It isn’t relevant to sweeping-statements about all Theists.
.
(Maybe you don’t make such statements, but many loud pseudoscientists do.)
.

, and the suggestion that atheists have no right to act on their sincere feelings that certain theistic beliefs could cause harm.

.
…their fanatical evangelical need to save others from wrong-belief.
.
Michael Ossipoff

It`s a straight forward question, so the only answer with any hope of genuine headway must be equally as straight forward. No more than two to three lines of prose are required in achieving the perfect answer. — celebritydiscodave

Tell us your perfect answer.

Anyway, with any metaphysical proposal, there are numerous questions and objections, from various people, to be answered. Your 3-line perfect answer won't do.

But you want a 3-line answer?

1. There inevitably are complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-thens about hypotheticals.

2. Inevitably, one of those has the events and relations of your experience.

3. There's no reason to believe that your experience is other than that.


Michael Ossipoff:

Nobody is going to remember all that lot??

Then forget it :D
— celebritydiscodave

- I did n`t say "negative feelings"

No, I did. You remembered that.

though did I, something is quite obviously always to blame for negative feelings

Sure, something in life.

, this is accepted by the vast majority of folk already

I demand a recount! :D

, so no explanation required for this assertion. I did n`t say negative on the mind I said nothing on the mind, and that nothing is neither negative nor positive..

Some say that there's something positively good about the absence of the negative.

Keep it simple, that`s the art,or how else can philosophical progression occur beyond just perhaps a single party..

I'll take that into account when I write a TV soundbite for you.

People who make a 1-line or 1-paragraph unsupported assertion like to try to make a virtue of that.

Michael Ossipoff

Arguably does n`t exist, because empty space is something, it is a gap, come a space, and a space is a space, not nothing, and without it distances between areas which contain matter would be reduced. — celebritydiscodave

\
Space isn't nothing. It's part of the physical world, a physical quantity, an attribute of the physical world.

And physicists tell us that "empty" space is teeming with virtual particles, coming into and out of existence.

However, should one`s mind be blank at any point in time one is thinking about nothing, so nothing exists on their conscious mind. One might of course argue that the empty mind also exists as a gap.between two places of mind.

Yes, an interesting idea, one of many interesting ideas from India.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

That's why I disagree with your suggestion of implicating or blaming Nothing, for those negative feelings. — Michael Ossipoff

.
You replied:
.

I'm not blaming anything on anything.

.
I just meant that the end of lives, when we approach Nothing, is a time without those negative things that you mentioned.
.

I'm just interested in the juxtaposition of being and nothing. I haven't thought it through properly but being (which I understand in a purely Heideggerian way as that on the basis of which entities are intelligible and determined as entities) and nothing are probably two sides of the same coin. For example, you can only unconceal the hidden being of entities upon the background of further concealment of being as Heidegger articulates in his phenomenology. Unconcealment requires concealment. That probably doesnt make any sense without examples... for example, a stupidly simple example, for a hammer to be truly unconcealed as ready to hand (being), its properties as physical occurrent object (being) must become backgrounded or concealed (nothing). Perhaps this concealment, or retreating of being, is nothing? Please don't bother criticising me as I haven't thought it through, or even come to terms with it yet...

.
A person could argue that a system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals isn’t very real. I don’t take a position about that.
.
The Nothing that is the quiescent background for the system of abstract facts that is a person’s life-experience possibility-story, that Nothing, could be argued to be more real than the possibility-stories.
.
I consider our lives and experience “real” because …well, because it’s our experience. But I realize that it could be argued that, if the possibility-stories’ reality is questioned, then Nothing could be left as the only metaphysically real thing.
.
Because an approach to Nothing is where we end up at the end of lives, and because the sleep at the end of lives doesn’t have a definite, limited, measurable length, then arguably that sleep at the end of lives is the really natural and normal state of affairs for us, instead of this brief temporary life in a world of time and events.
.
I’d said:
.

The immanence of complete shutdown is therefore quite irrelevant and meaningless from our point of view.

I disagree. I think this "immanence" is the most important aspect of our whole being. This immanence, our mortality, is not what happens during the process of or after our biological death. It is how we are in life towards our end. We are mortals.

.
Of course, the fact of our mortality is with us every day.
.

Oh Whoops, are you just talking about a deathbed situation?

.
Yes.
.

Did you mean to type imminence rather than immanence?

.
Yes. I didn’t know that there were both of those two words. I thought that there was just “immanence”, and that it had the meaning that (now that you’ve pointed it out) the dictionary gives for “imminence”.
.
I had no idea that there was a word “imminent”. I thought that the word with that meaning, was spelled “immanent”.
.
And the evident derivation from “manere” didn’t tell me different, because there’s often a great distance, and a roundabout route, and little if any recognizable relation, between a word’s meaning and the meaning of a word that it’s derived from.
.
Who’d have guessed that there was a “imminere“, to project or threaten, from a word “minere”, and related to the verb “mount” and the word “mountain”?
.
Anyway, yes I meant “imminent”.
.
I was referring to a time when complete shutdown is near.
.

As you may know, I am a Heidegger nut. And Heidegger suggests of death something like that it is our most pre-eminent possibility, and that our most pre-eminent possibility's imminence is immanent...

.
No disagreement with that. It’s the unavoidable destination and conclusion of a person’s life. And, because that sleep at the end of lives is how things end up for us, and doesn’t have some measurable finite length (as our lives do), that end is arguably the more normal and natural state of affairs for us, in comparison to our temporary life in the world of time and events.
.
I’d said:
.

I've been saying that our world of experience is a hypothetical life-experience possibility-story, consisting of a complex system of inter-referring abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals.

.

You've lost me. I don't see how experience is hypothetical.

.
But can you show that a person’s world and its events aren’t hypothetical?
.
Any fact about this physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact:
.
“There’s a traffic roundabout at 34th & Vine.”
.
“If you go to 34th & Vine, you’ll encounter a traffic roundabout.”
.
Additionally any fact about this physical world is the “if “ premise of some if-then facts, and the “then” conclusion of other if-then facts.
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (known as a “physical law”) are parts of the “if” premise of an if-then fact.
.
…except that one of those quantity-values can be taken as the “then” conclusion of that if-then fact.
.
Obviously, a physical quantity-value can be part of an if-premise, and part of a “then” conclusion.
.
Sure, our declarative, indicative grammar is convenient for describing things and events of this world. But the world can likewise be described by conditional grammar. …and that, and the world of “If” that it describes, suggests a metaphysics that doesn’t need a brute-fact, or any assumptions. …unlike the big brute-fact of Materialism’s unexplained world.
.
So we regard the world indicatively and declaratively, out of grammatical habit. …and as a result of lifelong conversation and early teaching.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

When someone wants to invoke unknowability and indeterminacy in metaphysics, I emphasize that definite uncontroversial things can be said about metaphysics, and that we should explain what we can before invoking unknowability or indeterminacy.

.
You asked:
.

What kind of definite uncontroversial things can be said [about metaphysics]?

.
1. There are abstract if-then facts.
.
People can debate whether they’re “real”, whatever that means. (I don’t take a position on that) People can argue about whether there would be abstract facts if there were no experiencers.
.
But no one denies that there are abstract if-then facts.
.
2. There couldn’t have not been abstract if-then facts.
.
Some argue against that by saying that there’d be no abstract facts if there were no experiencers. But that doesn’t follow.
.
Among the infinity of complex systems of inter-referring abstract if-then facts, there is, of course, one such system whose events and relations are those of your experience. And there are inevitably infinitely many other similar complex logical systems that, likewise, are about the experience of an experiencer.
.
I claim that it’s obvious and uncontroversial that an inter-referring system of abstract if-then facts about hypotheticals needn’t have any objective reality or meaning outside of its own inter-referring context, and doesn’t need any medium in which to be, or any global context or permission for there to be abstract facts.
.
What would it even mean to say that there could have not been such if-thens, or inter-referring systems of them? There’d have to have obtained, a fact that there are no facts other than that one fact that there are no other facts. That would be a special brute-fact, calling for an explanation, but not having one (How could it, if there are no other facts?).
.
The burden of proof is on the person who claims that there could have been such a preposterous brute-fact, having, somehow, by some unspecified unsupported global interconnection, the global authority to rule out all other facts.
.
Anyway, I don’t think it’s even meaningful to speak of the existence or “is-ness” of abstract if-then facts. Someone wanting to deny them that would have to specify just what they mean by such a claim.
.
Such systems aren’t without an experiencer, because I’m specifically referring ones that are about the experience of an experiencer.
.
The experiencer, and his/her experience-story are complementary parts of the same system, and timelessly, together, “are”. So, for the question of whether there could have not been abstract if-then facts, we needn’t concern ourselves with the issue of whether there would have been abstract facts if there’d been no experiencers.
.
(There’s also the issue of whether abstract if-then facts are independent of experiencers, but that’s a separate issue, for a different post. I take the extreme Realist position that they are, and I’ll tell why in another post, but that isn’t necessary for the conclusion that there couldn’t have not been abstract facts—for the reason described above.)
.
3. Then there couldn’t have not been complex systems of inter-referring abstract facts about hypotheticals, such as the one whose events and relations are those of your experience.
.
4. Because every fact about our physical world implies and corresponds to an if-then fact, and also is the “if “ premise of some if-then facts, and the “then” conclusion of other if-then facts, then there’s no particular reason to believe that your experience is other than the logical system described in the paragraph before this one.
.
…even though it can’t be proven that the Materialist’s objectively, fundamentally, existent physical world doesn’t superfluously exist, as an unverifiable and unfalsifiable brute-fact, alongside, and duplicating the events and relations of, the complex logical system that I’ve referred to. **
.
Is there anything there that anyone would disagree with? If not, then it’s uncontroversial.
.
So metaphysics isn’t the speculative, indeterminate, subject that some claim that it is.
.
(Yes, the paragraph above, ending with two asterisks (**), tells of an indeterminacy. I don’t claim that there’s no indeterminacy in metaphysics. But what I said above, which includes that indeterminacy, is a definite and uncontroversial statement.)
.
Michael Ossipoff

This is all based on a complete misunderstanding of what science is and does. Science doesn't impose extra assumptions on the evidence. It simply explains phenomenon in the most basic, simplest way. It doesn't complicate things by creating explanations of the supernatural and god. — Harry Hindu

No, because genuine science limits itself to the study and description of the physical world, the relations and interactions among the components of the physical world.

To want to apply science to matters of religion or metaphysics shows a complete misunderstanding of what science is.

...and amounts to practicing pseudoscience.

If we ever get around to finding evidence of god, science would gladly change it's mind.

Incorrect. Genuine science says nothing about God, one way or the other. See above.

Science is open to the idea of god, just as it is open to any other hypothesis

No, it isn't. Nor should it be, because the "idea of God" is quite outside the legitimate range of applicability and area of study of science. See above. Science is the study and description of this physical world, and the relations and interactions among its physical components.

God isn't a science issue.

Harry is espousing the religion of Science-Worship.

Science-Worship isn't science. It's pseudoscience.

, but we need evidence before we can even start down that fork in the road of proving it.

Science doesn't need evidence regarding issues or questions that aren't in its legitimate range of applicability.

What would evidence of god look like?

That would be an excellent question to ask someone who is asserting God to you. Is anyone here asserting God to Harry?

Maybe Harry would like to ask that question of a promotional Theist who asserts his religion to Harry.

There certainly are such promotional Theists, and it wouldn't be difficult to find one. Harry's could get an answer if he'd take his question to the right people.

Michael Ossipoff

I’d said:
.

…or could it be that maybe they’re tired of people who presume to speak for them?

.
You said:
.

I didn't speculate on their motives, only reported their actions.

.
Incorrect. You offered a theory to explain their objections.
.
I’d said:
.

…while claiming that positions, beliefs or faith that you don’t know, must be undefined

.
You replied:
.

. I claimed that it is a reasonable conclusion (among other equally reasonable conclusions) that to believe in something that is undefined is not sensible.

.
So it’s a reasonable conclusion that all that is “sensible” is definable. :D
.
But let me guess: You didn’t mean that either :D
.
Either that, or you have a strong belief in the all-encompassing applicability of language and description to all of Reality.
.
But I agree that anyone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
There are Theists who don’t assert to you, and so it’s unsurprising if they don’t define for you either.
.
The fact that a meaning isn’t defined to you doesn’t mean that it isn’t defined.
.
As I said, someone asserting to you should supply definitions needed for you to know what he’s saying.
.
That’s what’s missing from the assertions of typical loud pseudoscientists: a consistent definition of what Theism or what Theists they’re referring to.
.
Such pseudoscientists (but not you, of course) typically quote the anthropomorphic allegory of the more dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, and attribute it to all Theists.
.
By the way, those dogmatic Biblical-Literalists, the ones who go door-to-door, amply define their God and their religion. They define it at great length. Speaking for myself, I don’t agree with their denominational doctrine..
.
If you weren’t saying what I thought you were saying, then I don’t know what your point was, in saying those things that none of us disagree on. But, if we don’t disagree, that’s fine too.
.
…but I don’t agree what’s undefinable (and therefore undefined) is somehow “un-sensible”. But there are Theists who don’t assert un-definable things.
.

I've made no claims at all about whether each and every theist's belief is or is not undefined.

.
Then your remark about the sensibleness of what’s undefined has no relevance to or bearing on the discussion that you joined. As for sensibleness and definedness, see above.
.
I’d said:
.

Fine. Draw conclusions about the beliefs of the people who have told you their beliefs. Limit your conclusions to them.

.
You replied:
.

Show me where I have not admitted that my conclusions are drawn from a limited source.

.
But when drawing a conclusion from a limited source, one mustn’t apply it to a larger group of people.
.
Alright, you’ll say you didn’t. The assertive Theists define their beliefs to you at length. The ones who don’t, don’t assert to you either.
.
But now you say you weren’t referring to them, and so it’s anyone’s guess what you were talking about with your comments.
.

No, bigotry is defined as "intolerance towards those who hold different opinions from oneself." it has nothing to do with drawing conclusions based on a person's experience so far.

.
Drawing conclusions about a larger group of people, based on your experience “so far” with a smaller group, is bigotry.
.
…drawing conclusions about the beliefs of people other than the ones whose beliefs you’ve actually heard from or about.
.
I’d said:
.

Well, but what other Atheist activity is there?

.
You replied:
.

Unbelievable. Literally in the same couplet you criticise the conflation of 'all theists' and then immediately make a presumption about 'all atheists' do you even know what hypocrisy means?

.
I didn’t say that Atheists don’t do anything else, but not everything that they do is a specifically Atheist activity.
.
Well, what else would constitute a specifically Atheist activity? Alright, there could be discussion and activities dealing with discrimination, if there still is any. There could be weekend potlucks. So yes, there could be non-aggressive specifically Atheist activities. But evidently there must not be enough anti-Atheist discrimination to provide enough activities (admittedly that's speculation), because it’s really common for Atheists to be on the offensive, in organizational activities, and in forums. That isn’t an unfair assessment. It’s common knowledge.
.
How often do Theists start forum discussions by evaluating the judgment of, or proclaiming the wrongness of, what Atheists believe or don’t believe?
.
When I was an Atheist (I was raised Atheist), I often argued with Theists (as is usual, they were always people who believed anthropomorphic allegorical Theism, usually outright Biblical-Literalism), usually with me starting the argument. It was always amicable though, and I didn’t express any evaluative criticism of the Theists that I argued with. That rudeness would have been inconceivable for me. That’s the difference between me, when I was Atheist, and the aggressive loud pseudoscientists that I’m referring to, and talking to here.
.
Even when no longer Atheist, I continued talking to door-to-door denominational-promoters for a while, until I got tired of their arrogance and rudeness, and their unwillingness to have an open discussion.
.
I’d said:
.

It’s easy to make a sloppy irrelevant analogy.

.
You replied:
.

It's easy to simply state an analogy is sloppy and irrelevant without actually presenting an argument as to why... apparently.

.
As I said:
.
1. It’s well-established that all tigers are carnivores. Large mammalian carnivores typically eat mammals that are smaller than they are. Humans are smaller (in weight) than tigers, and are sometimes eaten by them. In that regard, tigers are less diverse than Theists, and are better known than non-asserting Theists are to Atheists.
.
2. Though tigers, sharks and alligators don’t always prey on humans, the mere fact that tigers, alligators, and some species of sharks might, necessitates the precaution of avoiding them all. We therefore avoid tigers, alligators and sharks, even without saying that they all always prey on humans.
.
But loud pseudoscientists habitually assert, without qualification or justification, about the beliefs of Theists in general. …without a necessity like that which justifies avoidance of tigers.
.
Maybe there was a time when Theists were more often the aggressors in the Theist/Atheist criticisms, but now it’s more usual for Theists to mind their own business, and for aggressive Atheists to be the ones who are on the attack.
.
There are notable exceptions, like the rude door-to-door dogmatic denominational-promoters.
.
Sure, in earlier history (and even sometimes currently, but rarely in this country), Atheists have endured physical persecution by dogmatic Theists, and that was wrong. But, even during those persecutory historical periods, the main victims of dogmatic persecutory Theists were other Theists of different denominations.
.
For example, the Inquisition was directed at minority denominations, and falsely-accused alleged witches or Satanists, rather than Atheists.
.
Michael Ossipoff

"So I suggest that the timeless sleep at the end of lives is only for those very few life-completed people who have no remaining needs, wants, inclinations or un-discharged consequences". — Michael Ossipoff


This would be very close to the beliefs of some Buddhist sects, with all kinds of possible variations. — Rich

Yes, and Vedanta, and Hinduism in general, too.

I find most Buddhists who believe this believe it because they were taught it. Being taught is much different from learning from experience. They yield a qualitative different feeling of knowing.

I claim that there's no memory of past lives (and that, in fact, they're completely indeterminate), and so no one knows about reincarnation from experience.

Sure, there are traditions, teachings, about those matters, that go back for millennia. That doesn't discredit them.

I claim that what I've been saying about those subjects is implied by an uncontroversial metaphysics.

Michael Ossipoff