Interesting, so it seems as thought you don't really understand how you come to perceive understanding itself. — 3017amen

How does "real" understanding differ from understanding? What do you imagine understanding to be? And what does it mean to "perceive" understanding? Until you're 1) clear on usage and 2) stop using loaded language, you're being incoherent.

If you have any point to make, now is the time to make it.

I keep asking you for clarity because I do not know either what you mean or what your words mean. You ignore the request but keep using the words - and that's abusive. And I strongly suspect you do not know what they mean either. What do you suppose truth is? And what would a subjective truth be? — tim wood

Subjective truth: a truth that, primarily, matters to the individual. Does that help?

So back to your statement. Does your statement "The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.
— tim wood " mean that subjective truth is more important to you?

How does "real" understanding differ from understanding? What do you imagine understanding to be? And what does it mean to "perceive" understanding? Until you're 1) clear on usage and 2) stop using loaded language, you're being incoherent.

If you have any point to make, now is the time to make it. — tim wood

The nature of your understanding, your existence, the thing-in-itself.

And so, it appears that you are not clear on how to articulate your own sense of understanding. Otherwise, it seems the only thing you do know is, a type of subjective understanding or truth, that you yourself seem to have. Did I interpret that correctly?

Subjective truth: a truth that, primarily, matters to the individual. Does that help? — 3017amen

Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?

Does your statement "The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.
— tim wood " mean that subjective truth is more important to you? — 3017amen

Your question seems to be, Is something-we-don't-know-what-it-is more important - and we don't know what that means although we've asked more than once - than, than what? Something? Something in particular? Anything? Everything? Nothing?

Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so? — tim wood

Both, no?

question seems to be, Is something-we-don't-know-what-it-is more important - and we don't know what that means although we've asked more than once - than, than what? Something? Something in particular? Anything? Everything? Nothing? — tim wood

Don't overthink it. The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth to be more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ?

The nature of your understanding, your existence, the thing-in-itself. — 3017amen

Verbs are really very helpful.

And so, it appears that you are not clear on how to articulate your own sense of understanding. Otherwise, it seems the only thing you do know is, a type of subjective understanding or truth, that you yourself seem to have. Did I interpret that correctly? — 3017amen

No. And you never will until you settle on some meaning of your own. What is a "sense" of understanding? What does that even mean? What is "subjective" as you use it here? And is that an "or" or an "of"?

Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?
— tim wood
Both, no? — 3017amen

Both not. Or do you mean that saying it's so makes it so?

The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ? — 3017amen

And here I close. Because I can get no sense from you, and you ignore my requests for clarity. Well, two can play - and one necessarily. If you have a point, you have been careful to avoid making it. Bye.

No. And you never will until you settle on some meaning of your own. What is a "sense" of understanding? What does that even mean? What is "subjective" as you use it here? And is that an "or" or an "of"? — tim wood

It means that only you know you. But that's a little confusing because you said you really don't understand the thing-in-itself. And that thing-in-itself is you, right?

Meaning, then, that it - whatever it is - is true? Or that the criteria of truth in this case is simply that the individual holds it so?
— tim wood
Both, no? — 3017amen

Both not. Or do you mean that saying it's so makes it so? — tim wood

Are both true?

The question is, do you hold your sense of understanding and truth more important than someone else's? And your answer is... ? — 3017amen
And here I close. Because I can get no sense from you, and you ignore my requests for clarity. Well, two can play - and one necessarily. If you have a point, you have been careful to avoid making it. Bye. — tim wood

Mmmm, let's see here. Am I to conclude ( I hate to sound redundant) that you do not even understand your own existence? I mean, first, you said that only things that are meaningful to you, are important to you. Now, you don't seem to be sure about how things become important to you through your own lack of understanding about cognition.

I'm confused here. How can you possibly argue against the concept of a God, and its existence, when you cannot even understand your own?

Please share!

Gibberish. Take your meds.

Explain how an ultimate "issue" makes an existential difference one way or another to proximate beings like us.

It might not at first seem to figure. But each of us does reach this fork in the road. Although many might just follow the herd, those who are inquisitive will give it some thought. Also on a larger scale it might figure. Religion, has for millennia, been adopted as a means to steer the population. Likewise the population has been steered absent religion towards rabid capitalism, the verge of nuclear annihilation, or moral collapse.

Indeed. I think it was in cognitive science's William James who said, in his book about The Varieties of Religious Experiences: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.".

Quite, also we might be intimately involved in a myriad of process beyond our comprehension, or preview.

So another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with.

It's always either reason or unreason. What's your pleasure? Or have you already told us it's unreason.

This is a discussion of positions on Gods amongst philosophers, so all avenues are relevant to the discussion. When it comes to the wider world, it doesn't figure and the jury is out when it comes to whether religion is a benefit, or a problem in the development and survival of the species.

Personally, I practice mysticism, so unusual perspectives on such things is the norm. I don't impose any of it on others, or aim to indoctrinate others. As regards "unreason", well acknowledging our limitations casts a shadow on what we do, or can know, helping us to see what we think we can know, but really can't. Like for example if there are/were prior temporal events in the origin of the Big Bang event. Some folk around here profess to know such things.

Should I take your response as an acquiescence by silence? Atheism doesn't appear to be able to answer the many many questions about existence.

Perhaps embellish your 180 to something a bit stronger. LOL

Quite, also we might be intimately involved in a myriad of process beyond our comprehension, or preview. — Punshhh

Indeed. No exceptions taken.

This argument is problematic because the other side of the debate will just dismiss it as sentimentality, or a natural bonding emotion. It eludes to a greater problem for the atheist position. Which is the problem of distinguishing a universe which is purely a happenstance of dust, from a universe which is entirely created by a God. How would they differ? This question is impossible to answer in the absence of a control, a universe confirmed one way, or the other to compare with. — Punshhh

I don't see it problematic at all. It's relative to the Metaphysical features of consciousness, which are different from that of Darwinian instinct. The analogies would be mathematical ability and/or musical genius. Neither of which confer any biological advantages in providing for survival of the fittest.

Similarly, if the atheist cosmological argument centers around materialism, it fails. As it relates to conscious existence, atheist Dennett acquiesced to the phenomenon of qualia, which is simply a euphemism for Metaphysical phenomenon from consciousness.

In short, Love is not needed for survival yet is a universally intrinsic and/or an innate feature of conscious existence. As it relates to musical and mathematical ability respectively, how could this (Love) universally subjective, yet seemingly objective truth, be so critical to the human condition?

That is just one of many things that relate to our self-awareness which is in itself, distinct from emergent properties of instinct.

@3017amen, I don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism.
You may harp on about others that don't share your belief, yet until you've justified it sufficiently there isn't anything to respond to here.
Not that it's about you or I, it's about theism.

don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism. — jorndoe

That's an interesting comment.

1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

don't share your belief — jorndoe

This is a discussion about the concept of God. The concept of God impacts over 75% of philosophical domain's primarily because it's about something and not nothing.

If you believe in nothing, then it seems your choice is to believe in atheism. A belief is a belief. :chin:

jorndoe
999
@3017amen, I don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism.
You may harp on about others that don't share your belief, yet until you've justified it sufficiently there isn't anything to respond to here.
Not that it's about you or I, it's about theism. — jorndoe

An absolutely indispensable ingredient to using "atheist" as a descriptor...is the BELIEF either that there are no gods...or the BELIEF that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god.

Atheism is a result of BELIEF every bit as much as theism is the result of BELIEF.

interesting — 3017amen

Not really. There really isn't much to it. If you'd read it as-is, that is.

(if anything, it's perhaps more interesting that you see it as another opportunity to launch presumptuous questions and slightly misrepresentative commentary, while still not even attempting to justify your faith sufficiently)

, if I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever @3017amen is on about apparently is.

Not really. There really isn't much to it. If you'd read it as-is, that is. — jorndoe

Gee that's sort of a paradox isn't it? Why are you participating in this thread if it's not interesting?

anything, it's perhaps more interesting that you see it as another opportunity to launch presumptuous questions and slightly misrepresentative commentary, while still not even attempting to justify your faith sufficiently) — jorndoe

Are you hiding behind ad hominem attacks instead of answering the questions about atheism/ nothing?
LOL

I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever 3017amen is on about apparently is. — jorndoe

I'm a Christian Existentialist.

Personally, I practice mysticism, — Punshhh

"mys·ti·cism
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender."

Is this about right? If it's about knowledge, that's reason, yes? No? The mind posits something beyond itself, called here god, that by definition cannot be known - and then some fools proceed to claim to know about it.

Is not this better? That the mind supposes something beyond itself and then applies its powers to understanding what that idea might mean, imply, reveal, learning what thinking and reason might offer.

participating in this thread if it's not interesting — 3017amen

What wasn't particularly interesting was noted in the comment, which isn't the same as this thread.

hiding behind ad hominem — 3017amen

Ad hominem would be saying that you're wrong because you're a dumbass. LOL

I'm a Christian Existentialist — 3017amen

s'well, now you just have to justify why you've got it right and others ought believe so as well, that's what might be interesting here (we'll see)

↪Frank Apisa, if I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever 3017amen is on about apparently is. — jorndoe

I am not going to speak for Amen...

but my position has been stated clearly. Here it is again:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
...so I don't.

If you see anything wrong with that position, Jorn, PLEASE, let's talk about it.

What wasn't particularly interesting was noted in the comment, which isn't the same as this thread. — jorndoe

Great! Could you answer at least one of these existential questions?

1. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

s'well, now you just have to justify why you've got it right and others ought believe so as well, that's what might be interesting here (we'll see) — jorndoe

What am I right or wrong about, I'm confused.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible); — Frank Apisa

Really? No reason to suspect?

How about my flying purple hippopotami? Btw, they're invisible, incomprehensible, unknowable. Of course you have no reason to suspect they cannot exist - or do you? In fact by your (apparent) criteria, you're obliged to suspend judgment on a whole raft of things - maybe an infinite number of things. And all thereby of equal standing. Your God, my hippo flying squad, the giant supernatural gerbils that power stars, the list just goes on. And that's what I find objectionable, that you make noise without having a useful point, without any meaningful criteria at all.

It may be that no form of human endeavor is or can be conclusive - but there are standards and there is evidence. Instructive is to recall that the gods used to inhabit woods and streams and mountain-tops; the air; to be the sun, the wind, the storm, and so forth, and driven out of all those redoubts by knowledge. He retreats in the face of knowledge. Christianity offers a God that cannot be known. And by that one comes to God that cannot be, cannot exist. This riddle is sublated into the proposition that the Christian God is a man-made idea, held in belief for salutary effect. Worked out by Christian theologians almost two thousand years ago, and in itself an idea with staying power, however much people misunderstand it and misuse it.

Yours is the position of a man looking at couple and declining to opine whether, if he's her husband, he beats her. Defensible, barely, absent particular evidence, but in the face of evidence, not just indefensible, but as well contemptible. You're a smart guy; it's an odd position to take and defend.

Trolls need meds too.

tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect? — tim wood

Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?

Share them. We can discuss the reasons.

How about my flying purple hippopotami? Btw, they're invisible, incomprehensible, unknowable. Of course you have no reason to suspect they cannot exist - or do you? — tim wood

I suspect there are all sorts of things that exist...that I do not know of, Tim. What is your point?

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?

Share them. We can discuss the reasons. — Frank Apisa

Subscribed! 180, Tim, jorndoe and others have yet to make their case. I'm not really sure why.

When I ask them questions that, say, relate to existentialism, metaphysics and phenomenology, they seem to be at a loss.

I suppose using common sense, relative to sociology, Atheism is a minority belief system for a reason. That said, the literal definition of “atheist” is “a person who does not believe in the existence of a god or any gods,” according to Merriam-Webster.

And so I wonder why they can't support their belief system?

I don't see it problematic at all. It's relative to the Metaphysical features of consciousness, which are different from that of Darwinian instinct. The analogies would be mathematical ability and/or musical genius. Neither of which confer any biological advantages in providing for survival of the fittest.

I agree, but for different reasons. My point was though, that it gives to much wriggle room for the atheist.

Similarly, if the atheist cosmological argument centers around materialism, it fails. As it relates to conscious existence, atheist Dennett acquiesced to the phenomenon of qualia, which is simply a euphemism for Metaphysical phenomenon from consciousness.

Materialism is blind, in the sense that it ignores any consideration of origin other than what is provided by the speculation of scientists. And takes for granted, indeed crystallises around the simplistic concepts* of the constitution of material as described by science.

In short, Love is not needed for survival yet is a universally intrinsic and/or an innate feature of conscious existence. As it relates to musical and mathematical ability respectively, how could this (Love) universally subjective, yet seemingly objective truth, be so critical to the human condition?

But you allude to a blind spot in materialism, which reduces all such aspects of consciousness to the material products of the evolution of material.

That is just one of many things that relate to our self-awareness which is in itself, distinct from emergent properties of instinct.

Really we require a universe known to originate from dust alone to compare with our own, otherwise we will go around in circles philosophically.

*Symplistic compared to what is likely going on in existence.

"mys·ti·cism
belief that union with or absorption into the Deity or the absolute, or the spiritual apprehension of knowledge inaccessible to the intellect, may be attained through contemplation and self-surrender."

I think you will find that trying to tie down Mystics is harder than herding cats (just like philosophers).

Is this about right?

That is a reasonable distillation into a sentence.

If it's about knowledge, that's reason, yes? No? The mind posits something beyond itself, called here god, that by definition cannot be known - and then some fools proceed to claim to know about it.

Knowledge via rational thought is secondary to other forms of knowledge.

There are fools all around us, like those who profess to know that there are no prior temporal events to the Big Bang event.

Is not this better? That the mind supposes something beyond itself and then applies its powers to understanding what that idea might mean, imply, reveal, learning what thinking and reason might offer.

In day to day life, yes. But Mystics tend to be interested in reality rather than practicality.

For me, what we don't know is of interest, it helps to orientate ourselves, to find a secure anchorage.