Sure! I know God exists. — 3017amen

Great! How?

Whereas from the religious perspective there really is something at stake - something of ultimate importance. — Wayfarer

And the obvious question here is, what?

Yep, no gods in any logic courses that I recall. — jorndoe

Really? The synthetic a priori is critical in Kant's critique of logic. The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

So, still not substantiated. — jorndoe

Let's go through each of the domains one at a time:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Let's see have I missed any other domains? Is that more than 75% of the domains of philosophy? LOL

Accountability and judgement. To be worldly. Or, to be spiritual. The soul. Fate itself. Basically. What isn't? To be both or even purely sociological... modern, civilized society and it's continued existence. There's really alot to choose from.

Great! How? — tim wood

Revelatory knowledge. It occurs in consciousness. LOL

But no thing. This goes to the value of religion and god(s) as ideas. Which pursued leads to the conclusion that God is made in man's image(s), in his ideas, for the value of them as ideas.

Revelatory knowledge. — 3017amen

Existence only, please. These are your terms. If all you mean is ideas, then you can have them. But at the same time we're back to flying purple hippopatomi,

Really? It exists in my consciousness. Are you saying that I don't have a consciousness?

The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? — 3017amen

That is a presupposition of Kant's thinking. If you wish to affirm it otherwise, then I ask you what a cause is. Do you wan to go there? What is a cause? edit: Btw, are you quite sure that all events have causes?

And sure. I yield God as an idea, and in some ways a good and useful one. Is that the ambit of your argument, that you possess an idea of God?

That is a presupposition of Kant's thinking. If you wish to affirm it otherwise, then I ask you what a cause is. Do you wan to go there? What is a cause? — tim wood

Metaphysical Will.

And sure. I yield God as an idea, and in some ways a good and useful one. Is that the ambit of your argument, that you possess an idea of God? — tim wood

God is as real as your conscious existence.

Bonus question: The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false?

And the obvious question here is, what? — tim wood

The religious answer, put in philosophical terms, is realization of an identity that is not subject to death. I take that to be the meaning of what Christianity calls the ‘eternal life’. (For an in-depth discussion see Alan Watts The Supreme Identity.)

Ah. This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:

This discussion is just full of surprises. :razz:


Stay tuned, it will only get better. One down, one more to go LOL

Had I lived in the first half of the last century (and, who knows?), I probably would have been a Theosophist. — Wayfarer

Interesting side note: my home town was founded in part by Theosophists, and a bunch of them still live here and lots of things are named after them. I walk daily in Besant Meadow. My junior college was on Leadbeater beach. Krishnamurti taught regularly at the Krotona Foundation overlooking Besant Meadow, whose gardens I used to regularly walk before the COVID-19 lock downs closed them. Etc. (My dad helped lay the mosaic on the "throne" of Beatrice Wood, whose home was on the land of the Besant Hill School, which locals know as "Happy Valley". I got to smash a bunch of her priceless ceramics to make the pieces for the mosaic).

I’ve always wanted to visit there - might, one day. My son is now a permanent resident in the US so am likely to visit again when travel opens up again.

I have a kind of sentimental affection for theosophy although I also know in some ways it was founded by cranks and charlatans (or possibly tricksters). But I still think they played an important cultural role.

My bad if I misread or misunderstood. I suspect that even he, @3017amen, does not know where he is coming from. If it's beliefs, that's not on the card. "Debate EOG," is what he said. Assuming the E is for "existence," that's the matter up for discussion.

I joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. I just thought I would point out that philosophy can't do that, it is toothless in this regard. Theology might be able to help, but that is treated as archaic (vestigial) around here. So what are we left with atheists and theists bashing each other over the head with blow up unicorns and hippopotami.

Part of the problem here I think is that 3017amen is arguing from a position of revelation and other folks are bashing this position because it doesn't seem to be defended, justified, or sustained with rational argument. But to even entertain this requirement debases revelation to some kind of psychological crutch for the weak willed. While from the point of view of the person who has had the revelation, any attempt to fulfil this requirement also debases it and exposes them to criticism of their intellectual interpretation of their revelation. Which is inevitable because such an interpretation is limited and inadequate being a human narrative and subject to human frailty.

So back to the bashing with inflatable weapons.

I would be interested to have a look at existence, in reference to God, though. To see if any agreement can be found.

My starting point would be as I have mentioned;

Am I God?
and
Could I exist without God?

Both reasonable questions when one defines God as the initiator of I (me)

Any Blavatsky Mews?

joined the thread because there seemed to be a bunch of atheists bashing a theist. — Punshhh

Ironically enough, it's perfectly fine Punshhh, thanks. What angry atheists (and there are definitely some on TPF) don't realize is that their anger only serves to substantiate mine and other's truth.

But this is nothing new under the sun. In studying the human condition, it's to be expected. And in recent history certainly, Einstein suggested it ( specifically the begrudged atheists) , as well as, of course, other historical texts :halo:

There's nothing wrong with spirited debate. But I notice on this site those atheists who are angry will hide behind personal attacks and/or ad hominem. Just an observation.

Bonus question: The classic example: all events must have a cause. Is that statement true or false? — 3017amen

Until you make clear what a cause is and an event is, no answer. Or, absent you, the answer is false.

God is as real as your conscious existence. — 3017amen

God as regulative idea. There's no revelation in this.

Until you make clear what a cause is and an event is, no answer. — tim wood

Sure. Let's explore that.

1. In consciousness what kind of knowledge causes such a judgment about causation? In other words, why/how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

God as regulative idea — tim wood

I'm not following that. Can you explain a regulative idea within one's consciousness?

Any Blavatsky Mews — Punshhh

Nope, that’s not a familiar name to me.

Whereas from the religious perspective there really is something at stake - something of ultimate importance. — Wayfarer

The religious answer, put in philosophical terms, is realization of an identity that is not subject to death. I take that to be the meaning of what Christianity calls the ‘eternal life’. (For an in-depth discussion see Alan Watts The Supreme Identity.) — Wayfarer

We're at least nominally a philosophy site. I'm not a member of the choir. Religion is contra-philosophy because it starts with givens that aren't, which (imo) honest philosophy, at the least, tries to bracket and quarantine. As religion, believe what you like. But in any other terms what does "realization of an identity" mean? No doubt (here) your observation about Christianity is true. But it makes Christianity a fool, and I do not mean that in a nice way. Nor in fact do I find Christianity, as I find it, foolish.

The point always is the camel's nose of the claim of a reality for something - whatever - that cannot by its very nature be real. And that as an idea is vitiated by association with reality. As idea, no problem here - though people acting on those ideas, believing them realities, have created more hell on earth by far than anyone or anything else, excepting the occasional large comet or volcanic eruption.

"Whereas from the religious perspective there really is something at stake - something of ultimate importance." I can only understand this as a kind of thinking that some people cannot get to without it being wrapped in, essentially, non-sense.

God as regulative idea
— tim wood
I'm not following that. Can you explain a regulative idea within one's consciousness? — 3017amen

May I interject a question. I am under the impression, that may be an error, that you claim God exists, in the same and ordinary sense and no other that things exist, or you or I or sticks and trees and so forth. In opposing this, I claim God does not exist because of a) lack of evidence , and b) in the nature of most folks' understandings of God are supernatural aspects that cannot exist.

I acknowledge that God, wherever and however and by whatever name thought is certainly and obviously an idea. But at the same time, reality or any substantive claim of reality for God destroys the Godhead of God.

Now it's not clear to me which notion of God is yours. If idea, which you seem to have said, then we're in agreement. As the reality and existence of ideas, of course they're real and exist. But as ideas, the qualification sometimes necessary to avoid confusion. So which is it? Agreement or disagreement?

As to your question above, Kant, with whom you appear to have some acquaintance, had you more acquaintance would have answered many times over. In brief, per him, thinking about God is speculative, but as a practical matter, can be useful to think about. Amen.

What is a cause?
— tim wood

Metaphysical Will. — 3017amen

Among the virtues of paper dictionaries is the listing of complete (or more-or-less complete) definitions of words, and one finds in looking up words thought simple and brief, that by the sheer length alone of the definition that they're not at all simple, or brief. "Cause" is such a word. Had you access to a dictionary, or lacking that had you even given the matter a quarter-minute's honest thought, you would not have paraded such a preening and prideful ignorance in what you have posted as a definition of "cause."

But we're tolerant, kind and indulgent. Tell us, please, how metaphysical will as a cause, works as a cause. Throw in your understanding of metaphysics too, if you will, because I can't make sense of that, either.

In opposing this, I claim God does not exist because of a) lack of evidence , and b) in the nature of most folks' understandings of God are supernatural aspects that cannot exist. — tim wood

That's a bit perplexing. Let me see if I understand that. It appears you're looking for some sort of physical or material evidence, yet there are immaterial and metaphysical phenomena associated with your own existence. What's the difference?

In the meantime please share your thoughts on synthetic a priori knowledge. I'll keep reminding you as we go along. I consider this round one of our boxing match.

which is it? Agreement or disagreement?

A — tim wood

God means different things to different people, including myself. Right now I'm focusing on the metaphysical aspects relative to consciousness viz Jesus.

So whenever you good time to study the synthetic a priori, please share your thoughts. After that, we'll move on to the other domains of philosophy that I mentioned to jorndoe .

In summary I'm thinking about 8 or 9 rounds of boxing aught to do it lol. How you respond to this first round will be interesting...

1. In consciousness what kind of knowledge causes such a judgment about causation? In other words, why/how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible? — 3017amen

It's a Kantian concept and believe it or not, the best and shortest and quickest way to understand it is to read Kant. And if you really have no idea, then you really have to read it.

Tell us, please, how metaphysical will as a cause, works as a cause. Throw in your understanding of metaphysics too, if you will, because I can't make sense of that, either. — tim wood

Metaphysical will causes you to make the choices, no? Please share your thoughts.