Who are you quoting?

As to agreeing to something, the only thing I have stated in this thread is that you are not saying anything remotely "Kierkegaardian."

If I may, I'd like to ask you what your understanding of atheism is?

A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods.

And so my existential argument is, you have to define the nature of belief.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Concept_of_Anxiety

A disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. — 3017amen

Personally I loathe to use the word God as I see it as a honorific title and myself would say a lack of belief in deity.

And so my existential argument is, you have to define the nature of belief.

I see belief as being a particular cognitive faculty I have and when faced with a specific question such as deity existence I'd say I lack that particular cognitive faculty for that specific content which is not equivalent to having a particular cognitive faculty for no specific content, hence why I wouldn't term atheism as a belief system and certainly not a religion.

That is not a bad encyclopedic description as such paraphrasing goes but it is only concerned in placing SK on a map in relationship to other writers and trends of thought.

It does not, however, in any way, reflect the discussion of psychology and the limits of its formulation to the ethical challenge SK puts upon the reader. The language of the Wikipedia is exactly the sort of description Kierkegaard delighted in making fun of.

How about a quote from the man himself to support your view?

Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but that gibberish didn't explain one's epistemic truth.

What way should I take it given no explanation why it's gibberish?

It may be gibberish but you don't seem to be forthcoming on why so.

I see belief as being a particular cognitive faculty I have and when faced with a specific question such as deity existence I'd say I lack that particular cognitive faculty for that specific content which is not equivalent to having a particular cognitive faculty for no specific content, hence why I wouldn't term atheism as a belief system and certainly not a religion. — Happenstance

That is very close to St Anselm's expression of God being "greater than can be conceived."
Interesting in the present context of what constitutes evidence.

And so my existential argument is, you have to define the nature of belief. — 3017amen

Is "defining the nature of belief" asking for something different than "defining belief"? If so, what's the difference?

That is very close to St Anselm's expression of God being "greater than can be conceived."
Interesting in the present context of what constitutes evidence. — Valentinus

I do think what may be constituted as evidence as subjective.

↪3017amen What way should I take it given no explanation why it's gibberish?

It may be gibberish but you don't seem to be forthcoming on why so. — Happenstance

Tick tock, tick tock.

My concern is that you haven't provided what your 'system of belief' consists of...for example what is the nature of your believe system?

I've told you mine. — 3017amen

No you haven't. Unless it consists of "god did it" written on the back of a copy of 'Watchtower'.

How about a quote from the man himself to support your view? — Valentinus

"I reason from existence, not towards existence."

No you haven't. Unless it consists of "god did it" written on the back of a copy of 'Watchtower'

I never said "God did it", did I? On the contrary, unless I'm mistaken, you are saying 'God did not do it', right?

Anyway, to answer your question, let me paraphrase a few from the OP:

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red to me.

Does the conscious and subconscious mind work together in a [illogical] contradictory manner (p and not p)?

Explain how I come to know something; what is the nature of a Belief?

Try to tackle any one of those, and I'd love to parse it with you, if you care to... .

Does mathematical abstract ability confer any survival advantage?

Does music theory have any biological significance at all?

Do all events have a cause?

True, false or something else?

Is love a phenomenon or is it all logical?

Explain the ineffable feelings of love.

Explain the feeling of the color red to me.

Does the conscious and subconscious mind work together in a [illogical] contradictory manner (p and not p)?

Explain how I come to know something; what is the nature of a Belief?

Try to tackle any one of those, and I'd love to parse it with you, if you care to... .

Tick tock tick tock

Do all events have a cause? — 3017amen

Temporary events have causes, but the permanent source has no cause.

Clocks ticking:

Assuming these questions are meant to somehow support theism, you should probably share that reasoning first.

Assuming these questions are meant to somehow support theism, you should probably share that reasoning first. "


Hey Praxis, thanks for asking:

1.Mathematical abstracts. Why do we have two ways or this dual capacity for knowing the world? Consider falling objects, we avoid them through our cognitive/perceptive abilities. One does not calculate the laws of gravity in order to avoid falling objects to survive in the jungle do they? What survival value does math hold? In Darwinism, there is no reason to believe that the second method springs from a refinement of the first. The former does have a biological need, the latter has no biological significance at all.

2. If I'm driving my car daydreaming, hit someone, and kill myself, how did that accident occur? (How did my consciousness allow me to do that?)

3. I am a composer and performer of music. I am trained both by ear and music theory. What biological significance does discussing music theory hold?


Per your request, I'd be happy to parse any of those with you....

Hey Poetic, cool stuff dude!!!

Consider falling objects, we avoid them through our cognitive/perceptive abilities. — 3017amen

And those evolved abilities include knowledge of gravity and math or else we'd get clunked.

Tick tock time continues:

Awesome. Reminds me of:

Existence is time
Time is existence
To see them as opposites
Is man's stubbornness

Time is existence — 3017amen

Existence is temporary, as changing in time; the timeless is permanent.

I have some disagreements with your reiterations. They're irrelevant, however, lacking a larger point. Am I correct in a assuming it has something to do with theism? If so, please explain the relation.

No, it has something to do with Atheists lack of ability to explain them adequately

You asked me a question so I provided more detail... Surely you're not making excuses are you?

LOL

Whenever you say "God did it," or "God didn't do it," someone else can say with equal truth and validity, "My magic hippopotamus did it." (Or didn't do it.) So why don't you try on dealing with magic hippopotami. Your conclusions from that will transfer to any argument you've made for or about God. I'd say your understanding of, but it's not clear to me you have one. (If you did, you wouldn't be posting here.)

Know one has come close to elucidating the nature of existing things, for which topics I provided a discussion point. — 3017amen

Hm. Eventually the thread drops in to tedium.

I've shown you uncaused events.

I've agreed with you that there is mystery in the world, and pointed out that theism is does not follow from that mystery; something with which perhaps you agree, since you at one stage claimed not to be a theist.

It's fine to say "I don't know" in the face of this mystery. Showing a bit of humility is better than ether jumping to conclusions or making things up - Christian Existentialism.

Gotcha....thus:

Time is eternity
eternity is time
to view them as opposites
Is man's perversity.

...the notion of nonphysical existents is incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Why?

First, what does it mean exactly for something to exist? And what does it mean exactly for something to be physical?

You: "Okay, don't take this the wrong way, but that gibberish didn't explain one's epistemic truth."
Me: "What way should I take it given no explanation why it's gibberish?
You: "Gibberish"

You've replied with gibberish because it doesn't answer my question anyway whatsoever. See how this works!

Anyway, could you point to where the big bwad atheist touched you?

Time is eternity — 3017amen

Time is of the temporary transmutations of the permanent timeless eternal.