I'm not arguing anything. I've been asking you Darwinian questions, as well as Metaphysical one's , both of which you cannot seem to provide clarification for... . — 3017amen
So then why does math have survival value when it's not needed? — 3017amen
And after you answer that, I'm still waiting for clarification on the Metaphysical questions LOL — 3017amen
You mean why does it have survival value if you cannot dodge coconuts with it. It has value in other ways, such as war and farming. — Malice
already told you my view. What else do you want to know? — Malice
But abstract's have no Darwinion advantages do they ? Help me understand that empirically if you are able... — 3017amen
There is nothing in evolution that says you should only be biologically capable of learning new things that are immediately beneficial for your survival. You might as just use people reading comic books as evidence against evolution, I don't know why you're stuck on this particular thing. — Malice
It's based on the same assumption that Plato and Aristotle made. In my thesis, I refer to the necessity of a First Cause as an Axiom (self-evidently true). Look it up. The "supernatural" aspect is merely logical inference. That's what philosophers do; this is a philosophical forum. You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics.That's an assertion based on presupposition. How do you establish a first cause beyond asserting it? Even if you are granted a first cause premise there's no justification presented for it being a supernatural cause. — CeleRate
You missed the stipulation in the earlier posts : both G*D and Multiverse are necessarily eternal and self-caused. No need for any other cause.If it was a supernatural agent, then what caused the supernatural agent? — CeleRate
I gave you my reasons via links in previous posts. It's not my job to read them for you. :nerd:I asked for the reason that it was limited to two. It's not my job to support your claim. — CeleRate
Meaning, you can't get inside of my head, and vise versa. For instance, I am male and you are female; the Doctor v. the patient, the artist v. the scientist, the teacher v. the student, ad nauseum. — 3017amen
Anyway, the Metaphysical Will, I think, can be part of the philosophy relative to intelligent design. And our collective reasoning here thru induction, if I may say, has led us to the Will ( much like Love) seems to be that which requires understanding. A conscious phenomenon that acts on its own. The innate, a priori, thing from conscious existence that is part of our self-awareness. The natural need of doing or Being. Or, some say, the so-called tension of existence; conscious existence.
If that has any truth to it, then to define such a 'tension', could in-part explain the notion of existential angst in living this life. — 3017amen
You should know better than to ask for scientific evidence & arguments for something that is not available for empirical measurements. Supernatural causes are excluded from modern Science on the basis of Methodological Naturalism. Look it up. But as a non-scientist, I am not bound by that arbitrary (but useful) limitation. Philosophers can go where Scientists fear to tread : Metaphysics. — Gnomon
That’s the whole idea of relating to the universe at a metaphysical level, and it’s the capacity we have as human beings: that we don’t need to actualise something in order to approach a more accurate understanding of it. It’s enough to perceive the potential, or even a remote possibility, to be what we are not, and to find value in what we learn from that. It’s fraught with uncertainty, sure, but that’s life - the alternative is ignorance, isolation and exclusion. — Possibility
I don’t believe that either Love or the Will ‘act on its own’. They are both relational concepts that theoretically enable us to integrate all possible existence as long as we’re open to the information, not ‘forces’ that act in isolation. To explain the notion of existential angst, we need to seek understanding beyond these ‘forces’ we perceive, in the same way that we came to understand the interrelated processes of bodily systems and the seasons, for instance. — Possibility
The term ‘intelligent design’ seems to imply a distinction between creator and created that we need to get past. — Possibility
In quantum physics, energy is a relation, not a force. It isn’t a ‘phenomenon that acts on its own’. — Possibility
I enjoyed the opportunity to respond to skeptical questions about a topic that is important to me (existence; ontology), and which is not addressed by pragmatic Science. That's the only reason I allowed you to continue to demonstrate your superior sophistry. But I could tell from the beginning that you weren't serious about hearing any "pro" assertions, as in my Enformationism "philosophical argument". Apparently you were only interested in trolling some Intelligent Design "idiots". This philosophical forum is important, because it allows us to "dialog" (not debate) with others who hold different worldviews. So, despite your anti-philosophy attitude, you have done us a service. Thanks. :cool:If you won't construct a philosophical argument, and you won't rely on science to substantiate the truthfulness of any of your claims, then there's nothing to debate. Making bald assertions is not philosophy. Better luck next time. — CeleRate
Great points. We talked about how awareness can be liberating. However, I'm a little confused by your aforementioned statement that we needn't actualize something... . Meaning, I agree ignorance is dangerous in that it doesn't provide for growth, etc.. But in this context, are you suggesting that all people are born with the same talents? — 3017amen
But if they are 'relational concepts', in what way are we relating to them? For example, you seem to be suggesting there is an 'out there' to relate or interact with. What are 'these forces'? Is that another term of the emotive phenomenon of fear? — 3017amen
I would rephrase it to say and confirm your notion of seeking understanding. Meaning, the distinction between creator and created is to strive for understanding of not only the self (ourselves/consciousness), but also the Metaphysical Will in nature (or Spinoza's Pantheism, if you prefer). — 3017amen
You really should have known by the title of the thread that you’d get nowhere, although Ill concede that the level of dishonesty and bad faith responses youre getting is fairly astonishing — DingoJones
Getting past the distinction involves striving to understand not only the self as a unique manifestation of the Metaphysical Will, but the unlimited possibility from which this Metaphysical Will is a reduction. — Possibility
Yes. Indeed. One other component of metaphysical will in consciousness and/or nature would be intentionality. Have you explored that concept?
The metaphysical question would be something like: can we feel the phenomenal character of the intention in nature as a sensory experience?
Although a question like that would be a bit ambiguous, you would most certainly have to start with defining, what does it mean to have intention; what is our intention. — 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.