That's not what he said, he said it was metaphysics.

If SK were to write today, I think he would be remiss not to consider nature's secrets along with cognitive science, which in theory would take his existential angst (mystery) to its current status of understanding. What follows would be a 21st century leap of faith.

Otherwise more to your point, I haven't claimed I understand God's essence or existence. So I'm not following you there.

It is refreshing none-the-less to hear you say that you cannot explain the nature of Love's existence.

Unless I'm mistaken then, are you thinking nihilism is the logical conclusion or outcome to that inquiry or mystery?

I want to give your post the analysis it deserves so I will only answer one of the two questions tonight and the other one about experience tomorrow.

The latter question about independent existence has been debated quite a bit on this forum in its various forms. And of course it's an intriguing question and is fun to postulate over... .

You probably know what side of the fence I would lean towards, which is I believe mathematics has an independent existence as apposed to a human invention or an Darwinion evolved trait. (Same with music theory. ) I don't have any reason to believe the second method springs from a refinement of the first. And even if one were to assume that somehow they were evolved traits to some degree, it would still not explain the ability to intellectualize about them. Talking about abstract's confers no biological survival advantage.

But there again you suggested nobody knows. So back to the OP, if nobody knows how does the Atheists account for those mysteries? And if they can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can they explain the nature of their belief (system) that a God doesn't exist (?).

So back to the OP, if nobody knows how does the Atheists account for those mysteries? — 3017amen

Depends on the atheist in question. They have all different sorts of views about this stuff.

Re "explaining the nature of their belief that a God doesn't exist," again, it's not clear to me what, if anything, the word "nature" is adding there. What's the difference between asking someone to "explain the nature of their belief that P" and "explain their belief that P"? (Not that it's clear what either are asking, by the way. But I suppose you're asking more or less for their justification for holding a belief.)

Note, by the way, that atheism isn't necessarily a belief.

When we mention something like that, instead of just functionally ignoring it, if you want people to think that a conversation is worthwhile, you should either make an adjustment for it ("Ah, okay, so it's not always a belief--let me be careful to not say that it is"), or you should argue against it, saying why you think that the idea that it's not always a belief is incorrect. "In my view it IS always a belief because . . . ."--you'd need to argue something like that.

I believe mathematics has an independent existence as apposed to a human invention or an Darwinion evolved trait. (Same with music theory. ) — 3017amen

You believe that music theory is something that we discover rather than invent?

Sorry TS, I haven't been purposely ignoring you ( I enjoy the exchanges) I've just been all over the place lately with work, here, and everywhere...wearing a lot of different hats right now LOL.

Anyway, I hope this statement will clear things up. Since you understand philosophy, when I talk about the nature of things, I'm basically referring to Kantian things-in -themselves.

I believe Kant was right, humans don't know thing-in-themselves. AKA the nature of existence. I think that's one reason why he made a big deal about critiquing pure reason. Pure reason of course, is a priori formal logic. It's central to the ontological argument for the existence of God as we know. It's meaningless. It leaves out experience (human sensory experience/ phenomena/cognition, etc.).

However, even though human phenomena won't tell us for sure about the nature of things, it gives us clues to the likelihood or plausibility for reasonable theories about same.

So, that leads to your question about justification for a claim of belief. Does my personal belief suffer from similar difficulties? Sure it does. But I'm not a Fundy either.

I won't digress too much about the value of the Religious Experience that has been well documented from the likes of Maslow, William James, Analytical Psychology/Carl Jung, NDE phenomena, et al. since that is a subject for another day. However, it is very impactful to say the least.

Music theory. Back In school, I had a debate with my professor about music theory. I didn't want to learn it because it was too hard. I was an ear trained musician. After much argumentation, we talked after class. He said, 'yes you're right Jim, I didn't want to tell you that music came before theory because if I told you that it would make you guys not want to learn theory.'

So yes firstly, I believe the phenomenon of music came first, then someone figured it out (theory). (There are minor exceptions in classical music... .) Secondly, to your point, there does not seem to be a clear answer, only a 'belief' as to the nature of it. In any case, what we do know is, that it doesn't confer any biological advantages. And we know the sounds of music itself takes primacy over music theory.

And as far as its second cousin, mathematics, for some reason my Kantian intuition tells me mathematics has an independent existence.

Just a wild guess but so far your reasoning appears to be something like: there are mysteries no one can answer and therefore we should all be agnostic. Is that right? — praxis

@3017amen Tick tock

Hey Praxis...I would say yes, if that's your choice.

I was an ear trained musician. — 3017amen

I sincerely hope you do mean that in the past tense.

You’re an idealist, in other words.

... philosophically?

if they can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can they explain the nature of their belief (system) that a God doesn't exist (?). — 3017amen

If you can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can you explain the nature of your belief (system) that a God does exist (?).

If you can't explain the nature of those mysteries ( and many other Existential phenomena) then how can you explain the nature of your belief (system) that a God does exist (?).

In logical terms, through Apophatic or negative theology.

For example if one say's they think God is spiritual, that's just another way of saying God is not a physical being. As a metaphysical theory, I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light).

The logic there is a form of inference from nature. Consider the notion from the OP:

All events must have a cause.

That's a synthetic a priori judgement. Meaning its a synthesis between innate forms of intuition and experience about the world. However, we only know the statement is partially true but we're not exactly certain, because we have not experienced every event.

So we look at existing things to basically corroborate or infer as to whether that (causal relationships) could be true. Physical science almost always uses synthetic propositions or judgements to advance a theory about a some-thing.

If all events must have a cause is true, what is the takeaway? What if it's false? What would that mean?

I'm not a 'theist'. — 3017amen

I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light). — 3017amen

???

Do my subjective thoughts make me a theist (or is it a metaphysical theory)?

Edit: Bonus question, are you an Atheist?

LOL

You mention God as though it’s a given, and even attribute consciousness, yet claim not to be a ‘theist’.

Is it a given?

I personally think God is an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light). — 3017amen

I personally think God isn't an ineffable, genderless electromagnetic force (i.e. EM fields of consciousness or light).

How is your statement any better supported than mine?

If all events must have a cause is true, what is the takeaway? — 3017amen

Literally anything. Atheism, theism, flying-spaghetti-monster-ism... Absolutely any view on God could derive from a synthetic judgment that all events have a cause. I might be atheist and believe in a beginning of time, I might be Christian and believe in Genesis. I might believe the whole universe is a figment of my imagination.... Anything.

The simple fact of experience that it appears all events have a cause does not necessarily lead anywhere.

Not to sound disparaging, I'm just a bit confused, why do you feel the need to contribute anything on this subject matter? Are you not happy with Atheism?

Otherwise, okay, great! Now what, anything?

Sorry, but it really begged those questions...my thought is if you were content, you would not be interested. But then the more I'm thinking about it, maybe it's your innate sense of wonder that's causing your curiosity?

LOL

It worse than unsupported, the claim is incoherent.

If God is knownto genderless, electromagnetic consciousness, God is certainly not ineffable. Amen knows precise things about God.

Aren't all metaphysical theories unsupported/incoherent/illogical?

And how do you know God is not ineffable?

Tick tock tick tock

Nope, just the opposite.

Metaphysics deals in logical distinctions of necessity. Properly reasoned, metaphysics involves what we can be sure of, without making reference to a supporting empirical context. Indeed, if we try to reason about metaphysics empirically, we just end up with nonsense statements.

I know God is not ineffable because that would mean God was meaningless and absent. It would suppose a God which even lacked the distinction of being God. A God in which there was no God because concepts and statements about God would not pick out anything.

Oh okay well I have tons of questions first of all are you saying the concept of God is abstract?

Is it a given? — 3017amen

I said that you speak as though God is a given. If I said that an apple pie is sweet I’m speaking as though an apple pie exists, or has existed. If I were to say, “If YHWH exists, she is ineffable,” that wouldn’t be speaking as though YHWH necessary exists. In any case the statement is incoherent.

Sure. I suppose you could say as a similar analogy that this statement is a given:

All events must have a cause.

Is that a given?

It doesn’t matter that causes & events are not distinct physical things like an apple pie, you can still dispute their existence. You can dispute the existence of pie, if you like.

I'm not quite following that could you rephrase the statement?

The existence of anything is disputable, or can not be taken for granted.

Shure. How do we confirm the existence of things then?

whoops

Shure. How do we confirm the existence of things then? — 3017amen

We see that we behave as though things exist even though we haven't confirmed their existence. That's as good as a confirmation gets this side of certainty.

How do we confirm the existence of things then? — 3017amen

A defining characteristic of religion is its dependence on authority. Only a religious authority can attribute qualities to the ineffable. :halo: