Don't be shy 180. Argue that God does not exist!!!! — 3017amen

Careful what you ask for!

I'm getting my notebook and popcorn ready!

An important point from classical theology - that God does not exist, or rather, surpasses existence, and so cannot be said to exist or not to exist.

Ergo, belief in God is not a belief about something that exists or doesn't exist. It's a belief about the meaning of what exists. A theistic philosophy posits that the nature of the Universe is such that it means or implies the reality of a source of order which cannot itself be understood on the level of phenomena. Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. (Any objectors, please provide an example of something existing that doesn't satisfy those conditions); and also because 'what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary.

There are elaborations of this understanding in classical theology, for instance, John Scottus Eriugena:

things accessible to the senses and the intellect are said to exist, whereas anything which, ‘through the excellence of its nature’ (per excellentiam suae naturae), transcends our faculties are said not to exist. According to this classification, God, because of his transcendence is said not to exist. He is ‘nothingness through excellence’ (nihil per excellentiam).'

However

An affirmation concerning the lower (order) is a negation concerning the higher, and so too a negation concerning the lower (order) is an affirmation concerning the higher.
According to this analysis, the affirmation of man is the negation of angel and vice versa.

In other words, the concept of 'existence' cannot be univocally applied to beings on different levels of the hierarchy ('great chain of being').

SEP

Neither Maslow, nor James endorse any particular religion; and James at least (whose work I am most familiar with) does not count mystical experience as evidence for any religious "truths" such as the existence of God or spirit or Buddha Nature or whatever; (he was a pragmatist after all!), but understands such experiences as motivators for faith.

Even your avatar understood religious faith to be an irrational leap.

I agree that mystical experiences, and other kinds, communal, aesthetic and ceremonial, for example, can be religious motivators, but I would not count any of that as evidence that there is absolute religious truth over and above human life.

’what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer

I think this is the other way around. ‘What exists’ is necessarily dependent on everything else and necessarily transitory in nature. ‘The source of what exists’ is contingent upon whatever need one is trying to fulfill, such as the need for meaning.

In other words, the concept of 'existence' cannot be univocally applied to beings on different levels of the hierarchy ('great chain of being'). — Wayfarer

Yes, it seems reasonable to say there are different ways of being or existence, but not radically different kinds of being or existence. The idea of a hierarchy of being is an anthropomorphic projection; different ways of being or existence (excluding the moral or aesthetic dimension) are not, in any absolute or essential sense, higher or lower, or better or worse.

‘What exists’ is necessarily dependent on everything else and necessarily transitory in nature. ‘The source of what exists’ is contingent upon whatever need one is trying to fulfill, such as the need for meaning. — praxis

:up: :up:

Don't be shy 180. Argue that God does not exist!!!!
— 3017amen

Careful what you ask for!

I'm getting my notebook and popcorn ready! — tim wood

:wink:

spirit — 3017amen

To perk you up and lift your spirit, kind of:

Based on the sum total of my experiences (which may not coincide with yours) I have sufficient evidence of connectivity which transcends the domain of ordinary scientific discourse. — Pantagruel

This does sound quite a bit like faith, though. I think faith in concerning metaphysical concepts is perfectly fine. I just don't think it obliges me to adopt an agnostic position.

Trivially, neural networks operate by leveraging 'hidden dimensions' of connectivity also, so while this may not rise to the standard of scientific proof, it is evidence, nevertheless. — Pantagruel

But evidence for what, exactly?

And I certainly extend my hypothesis to include the strong possibility of there being forms of consciousness far more advanced and therefore toto caelo unlike ours. Possibly not limited in space and time like ours. And I conceive this to be 'close enough' to the most general form of the notion of God — Pantagruel

I think that, by definition, a consciousness toto caelo unlike ours would be unknowable to us. We can recognise consciousness that is significantly similar to our own, but only by comparison to our own behaviour. I see no way to ever establish totally alien consciousness, though I think it's fine to fantasize about them (I do, too).

As was said, it all depends how you define "God," doesn't it? — Pantagruel

Given that you could define "God" in a way to refer to your pet goldfish, sure it does. But of course people refer to traditional notions of God when they call themselves atheist.

What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound.

Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. — Wayfarer

It would seem to me that if there is a source of order, and the source of order does not have a beginning or end in time, and it's not composed of parts, then existent things do not necessarily have a beginning or end in time and are not necessarily composed of parts. Ditto for contingency versus necessity.

Or in other words, this seems like a type of special pleading.

What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound. — Wayfarer

So then you'd need to explain what you think is the non-straw man version of god(s) . . . and of course that will probably lead to new issues and new doubts or denials as above.

It would seem to me that if there is a source of order, and the source of order does not have a beginning or end in time, and it's not composed of parts, then existent things do not necessarily have a beginning or end in time and are not necessarily composed of parts — Terrapin Station

Can you name any such thing? I mean, here I am, typing my response to you on an iPad on the kitchen bench: there’s nothing I can sense here which is not temporally limited or compound. Everything I see around me is composed of parts and begins and ends in time. So if you’re making such a claim, how can you support it? What do you mean by it?

Can you name any such thing? — Wayfarer

You're suggesting one. God or the source of order in your view. If there is such a thing, then that thing exists and not all existents have parts, etc.

It’s a philosophical question: what, in experience, is not composed of parts and or has a beginning and end in time? Name something. I’m betting that everything described in an encyclopaedia falls under that categorisation.

If you're saying there is something that's not experiential then you can't say that all existents are experiential.

you’re not addressing the question.

It's addressing the question in pointing out that asking about experience is irrelevant if one is positing that there are non-experiential things. In that case, existents aren't exhausted by talking about experiential things.

Great !! So far I'm up on the Atheist 3-0 and counting LOL

Great !! So far I'm up on the Atheist 3-0 and counting LOL — 3017amen

You're not even addressing most posts/most points or questions in those posts.

An important point from classical theology - that God does not exist, or rather, surpasses existence, and so cannot be said to exist or not to exist. — Wayfarer

What do you mean when you say classical theology? A specific time period?

Ergo, belief in God is not a belief about something that exists or doesn't exist. It's a belief about the meaning of what exists. A theistic philosophy posits that the nature of the Universe is such that it means or implies the reality of a source of order which cannot itself be understood on the level of phenomena. — Wayfarer

That seems to describe a metaphysical concept. So, you're saying God should not be understood as a physical entity, but as a metaphysical concept?

What would you say are the epistemic rules concerning metaphysical concepts?

Accordingly, this source of order cannot be said to be something that exists, because existing things (1) have a beginning and an end in time and (2) are composed of parts. (Any objectors, please provide an example of something existing that doesn't satisfy those conditions); and also because 'what exists' is contingent, whereas 'the source of what exists' is necessary. — Wayfarer

Which would be the correct attribute or relation to describe metaphysical concepts, if "existence/nonexistence" cannot be used? Truth/Falsehood?

Atheism sounds anachronistic because it defines itself in terms of anachronistic religion, surely?

What would you like me to address?

In your case, you contradicted yourself on the topic of Purpose

And secondly, you didn't understand basic deductive/formal logic in defending your claim that God doesn't exist.

In your case, you contradicted yourself on the topic of Purpose — 3017amen

Sure. So start with that. What did you take to be a contradiction (presumably some P (some proposition) that I both asserted and denied)?

And secondly, you didn't understand basic deductive/formal logic in defending your claim that God doesn't exist. — 3017amen

Re that, I proposed a wager. Would you make a wager about it?

You're still in the dark. Why do I have goals? What does that confer? Happiness/purpose?

You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose. Then you said human's have goals.


Then on your next point. I might be mistaken, but if you're claiming God does not exist in a proposition, you have to defend it.

You contradicted yourself from your earlier statement that there is no purpose. Then you said human's have goals. — 3017amen

What I wrote was "The world in general has no purposes." In other words, outside of humans thinking about things that way, purposes do not obtain in the world. And then I mentioned teleology (I mentioned it being bunk). Teleology is "the explanation of phenomena in terms of the purpose they serve rather than of the cause by which they arise" or "the doctrine of design and purpose in the material world." That should have given you a clue what I was saying with "The world in general has no purposes" if that sentence alone was not sufficient. (You're not another Aspie, are you?)

Then on your next point. I might be mistaken, but if you're claiming God does not exist in a proposition, you have to defend it. — 3017amen

I asked you per what do you have to defend it. You said per the rules of formal, including propositional, logic. I challenged you to a wager: find a logic textbook that says anything like "If you claim that P, then you have to defend it" and you win the bet. The reason I made that challenge is that you've made a number of statements about logic that suggest that you don't understand what logic is.

Your point alludes to cosmology. I'm talking consciousness/cognitive science. So, can you answer why human's have purpose and why that's important?

Your second point, unless I've missed something regarding 'P', were you able to simply answer the important/relevant question:

1. God does not exist.

Again, is it true or false? (If you answered it please let me know where, or just answer it now.)

I'll wager you can't defend it, yes. No textbook needed is there?

So let's do this first:

Your point alludes to cosmology. I'm talking consciousness/cognitive science. So, can you answer why human's have purpose and why that's important? — 3017amen

This is why it's important to not bypass some posts.

Re why humans can think about things in terms of purpose, I said this, in response to every potential question of this sort:

"The only reason that those things exist [such as purposes] is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the formation of brains as they are. There's no additional 'why' to it aside from that."

Also, countless times now, I've explained to you that there need not be any importance to any trait that arises. That's not to say that thinking about things in terms of purpose isn't important, but it's irrelevant whether it's important. It could be a detriment, and it could still have arisen and persisted.

We're at an impasse. You are not answering the existential question about the why's of existence.

Your talking around the question and deflecting away from your own truth.

Example: most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? If it's both, you would have to admit that there still remains a mystery associated with animal or human existence.

Otherwise we are left with your contradiction of the cosmological world having no purpose, yet the animals/humans who inhabit the world do indeed have a purpose.

Am I missing something there?


Regarding the other:

1. God does not exist.

True or false?

I bet you can't defend your position.

We're at an impasse. You are not answering the existential question about the why's of existence. — 3017amen

As I say here, there is no why other than this:

"The only reason that those things exist [such as purposes] is because it's stuff that brains can do, and natural processes can and did result in the formation of brains as they are. There's no additional 'why' to it aside from that."

You'd have to explain why, in your view, that doesn't answer why something like purpose exists as a way we think about things. Can you explain that?