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. — 3017amen
Why?
First, what does it mean exactly for something to exist? And what does it mean exactly for something to be physical? — petrichor
Anyway, to answer your your question, let me paraphrase a few from the OP:
... ?
... ?
... ?
... ?
... ?
... ? — 3017amen
"I reason from existence, not towards existence." — 3017amen
One never reasons in conclusion to existence, but reasons in conclusion from existence. For example, I do not demonstrate that a stone exists but that something, which exists, is a stone. The court of law does not demonstrate that a criminal exists but that the accused, who does indeed exist, is a criminal. Whether you want to call existence an addition or the eternal presupposition, it can never be demonstrated.
If, for example, I wanted to demonstrate Napoleon’s existence from his works, would this not be most curious? Isn’t it Napoleon’s existence which explains his works, not his works his existence? To prove Napoleon’s existence from his works I would have in advance interpreted the word “his” in such a way as to have assumed that he exists. Moreover, because Napoleon is only a human being, it is possible that someone else could have done the same works. This is why I cannot reason from the works to his existence. If I call the works Napoleon’s works, then the demonstration is superfluous, for I have already mentioned his name. If I ignore this, I can never demonstrate from the works that they are Napoleon’s. At least I cannot guarantee that they are his. I can only demonstrate that such works are the works of, say, a great general. However, with God there is an absolute relation between him and his works. If God is not a name but a reality, his essence must involve his existence. — Soren Kierkegaard
Is that what your way of saying that your atheism is untenable?
I mean you didn't even answer any of my concerns. — 3017amen
Absolutely banno it's fine to say I don't know. But positive atheism doesn't say that. — 3017amen
Re existing, the idea is simply that something is present, it occurs, it obtains, it's instantiated, etc. — Terrapin Station
I hate to do this when you're being friendly (which I'm grateful for--seriously), but I wouldn't say that really understood what I wrote (so even though I was hesitant to point this out, I think it's important because you think the comments are sourced in the mere fact of disagreement).
I wasn't saying that atheism implies no interest in gods or deities. So "If you are atheist you have no interest in gods or deities" isn't necessarily the case, and that's not what I wrote, it's not what I was saying.
Particular atheists might have no interest in gods or deities, but plenty do. The ones who do have an interest have just reached the conclusion that there are no such things as gods, or they at least lack a belief in gods. — Terrapin Station
First of all I'm not a 'theist'. However I posit that a theist, atheist, et.al . is unable to adequately explain the nature of those kinds of things.
My guess is that it's similar to the ineffable feelings of love. And maybe philosophically one could argue that love is a mottled color of subjective and objective truth.
How would one capture the phenomena of Love in words? — 3017amen
I don't have an answer for mathematical abstracts. And neither do you or anyone else. — 3017amen
When you say, "something is present," do you have in mind that it must be a thing in the world, something extended, something finite and measurable? Must it have location? — petrichor
Can there be actualities, realities, truths, and so on, that aren't things in this sense? — petrichor
Consider that some physicists are working with new ideas in the pursuit of quantum gravity where time and space and matter all emerge from an even more fundamental level. Would that more fundamental, non-extended, non-temporal reality be something that "exists" in the sense you are talking about? — petrichor
What about that which grounds physical reality? — petrichor
It cannot itself be physical in the sense of being a measurable state of affairs inside the world. — petrichor
Valentinus' point was existence precedes essence. — TheWillowOfDarkness
They're entitled to that choice to believe otherwise. However, it begs the question of what does "otherwise" really mean. No - thing?
They can't even explain things in themselves. — 3017amen
The ontological argument of course is based solely on a priori/pure reason. It's meaningless. Most know that. Traditional Theism endorses that logic. I don't. The irony is atheism endorses the same kind of logic relative to explaining things in existence. — 3017amen
Your question about what I think about whether God exists independently of humans existence is of course not answerable. However my answer here is consistent to the theme in the OP which is, I speculate that God would exist like mathematical abstracts exist. Which isn't too far off from the notion that all events must have a cause. — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.