This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall. — jorndoe

Really? The synthetic a priori is critical in Kant's critique of logic. The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

So, still not substantiated. — jorndoe

Let's go through each of the domains one at a time:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Let's see have I missed any other domains? Is that more than 75% of the domains of philosophy? LOL

Accountability and judgement. To be worldly. Or, to be spiritual. The soul. Fate itself. Basically. What isn't? To be both or even purely sociological... modern, civilized society and it's continued existence. There's really alot to choose from.

Great! How? — tim wood

Revelatory knowledge. It occurs in consciousness. LOL

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Really? It exists in my consciousness. Are you saying that I don't have a consciousness?

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

That is a presupposition of Kant's thinking. If you wish to affirm it otherwise, then I ask you what a cause is. Do you wan to go there? What is a cause? — tim wood

Metaphysical Will.

And sure. I yield God as an idea, and in some ways a good and useful one. Is that the ambit of your argument, that you possess an idea of God? — tim wood

God is as real as your conscious existence.

Bonus question: The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

And the obvious question here is, what? — tim wood

The religious answer, put in philosophical terms, is realization of an identity that is not subject to death. I take that to be the meaning of what Christianity calls the ‘eternal life’. (For an in-depth discussion see Alan Watts The Supreme Identity.)

Ah. This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:

This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:


Stay tuned, it will only get better. One down, one more to go LOL

Had I lived in the first half of the last century (and, who knows?), I probably would have been a Theosophist. — Wayfarer

Interesting side note: my home town was founded in part by Theosophists, and a bunch of them still live here and lots of things are named after them. I walk daily in Besant Meadow. My junior college was on Leadbeater beach. Krishnamurti taught regularly at the Krotona Foundation overlooking Besant Meadow, whose gardens I used to regularly walk before the COVID-19 lock downs closed them. Etc. (My dad helped lay the mosaic on the "throne" of Beatrice Wood, whose home was on the land of the Besant Hill School, which locals know as "Happy Valley". I got to smash a bunch of her priceless ceramics to make the pieces for the mosaic).

I’ve always wanted to visit there - might, one day. My son is now a permanent resident in the US so am likely to visit again when travel opens up again.

I have a kind of sentimental affection for theosophy although I also know in some ways it was founded by cranks and charlatans (or possibly tricksters). But I still think they played an important cultural role.

My bad if I misread or misunderstood. I suspect that even he, @3017amen, does not know where he is coming from. If it's beliefs, that's not on the card. "Debate EOG," is what he said. Assuming the E is for "existence," that's the matter up for discussion.

I joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. I just thought I would point out that philosophy can't do that, it is toothless in this regard. Theology might be able to help, but that is treated as archaic (vestigial) around here. So what are we left with atheists and theists bashing each other over the head with blow up unicorns and hippopotami.

Part of the problem here I think is that 3017amen is arguing from a position of revelation and other folks are bashing this position because it doesn't seem to be defended, justified, or sustained with rational argument. But to even entertain this requirement debases revelation to some kind of psychological crutch for the weak willed. While from the point of view of the person who has had the revelation, any attempt to fulfil this requirement also debases it and exposes them to criticism of their intellectual interpretation of their revelation. Which is inevitable because such an interpretation is limited and inadequate being a human narrative and subject to human frailty.

So back to the bashing with inflatable weapons.

I would be interested to have a look at existence, in reference to God, though. To see if any agreement can be found.

My starting point would be as I have mentioned;

Am I God?
and
Could I exist without God?

Both reasonable questions when one defines God as the initiator of I (me)

Any Blavatsky Mews?

joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. — Punshhh

Ironically enough, it's perfectly fine Punshhh, thanks. What angry atheists (and there are definitely some on TPF) don't realize is that their anger only serves to substantiate mine and other's truth.

But this is nothing new under the sun. In studying the human condition, it's to be expected. And in recent history certainly, Einstein suggested it ( specifically the begrudged atheists) , as well as, of course, other historical texts :halo:

There's nothing wrong with spirited debate. But I notice on this site those atheists who are angry will hide behind personal attacks and/or ad hominem. Just an observation.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Until you make clear what a cause is and an event is, no answer. — tim wood

Sure. Let's explore that.

1. In consciousness what kind of knowledge causes such a judgment about causation? In other words, why/how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

God as regulative idea — tim wood

I'm not following that. Can you explain a regulative idea within one's consciousness?

Any Blavatsky Mews — Punshhh

Nope, that’s not a familiar name to me.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

In opposing this, I claim God does not exist because of a) lack of evidence , and b) in the nature of most folks' understandings of God are supernatural aspects that cannot exist. — tim wood

That's a bit perplexing. Let me see if I understand that. It appears you're looking for some sort of physical or material evidence, yet there are immaterial and metaphysical phenomena associated with your own existence. What's the difference?

In the meantime please share your thoughts on synthetic a priori knowledge. I'll keep reminding you as we go along. I consider this round one of our boxing match.

which is it? Agreement or disagreement?

A — tim wood

God means different things to different people, including myself. Right now I'm focusing on the metaphysical aspects relative to consciousness viz Jesus.

So whenever you good time to study the synthetic a priori, please share your thoughts. After that, we'll move on to the other domains of philosophy that I mentioned to jorndoe .

In summary I'm thinking about 8 or 9 rounds of boxing aught to do it lol. How you respond to this first round will be interesting...

This user has been deleted and all their posts removed.

Tell us, please, how metaphysical will as a cause, works as a cause. Throw in your understanding of metaphysics too, if you will, because I can't make sense of that, either. — tim wood

Metaphysical will causes you to make the choices, no? Please share your thoughts.