Well yes in the realms of human discourse, religion, politics and human intellectual knowledge. But none of that answers the question, the EOG, unless God can be reduced to, or subject to, the human understanding of God. That God can only exist in the minds of those who profess to believe in him, a psychological crutch. Or others explain that God is an artefact of human knowledge and thinking. Just like the perfect circle exists as a concept, but no truly perfect circle can exist, only the concept can.This and this alone, to my way of thinking, empowers the idea of God, that it be limited only by combined imagination and reason - and not by mere material/physical being.
and any serious philosophical enquiry into EOG must firstly conclude that humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge is not equipped to answer the question. — Punshhh
Acknowledging my and humanity's lack of knowledge of our origins and the origins of the world we find ourselves in.And where does that leave you? — tim wood
They are not privy to the information required, or means to get it through rational thought, so as to be in a position to answer the questions of our origins. This would presumably be established through a serious philosophical enquiry. Is there a philosophical enquiry which has reached a different conclusion? I would be interested to knowWhat even does it mean to have a "serious philosophical inquiry" into matters that "humanity and therefore human philosophical knowledge" are not equipped to answer?
As I have just pointed out, I am not saying we cannot think it, but rather, that we are in the position of being in ignorance. Someone might discover some secret to our origins enabling them to determine our origins. But while we remain in ignorance we cannot think the thoughts that such a person would employ.All you have is speculation and speculative reason. When you figure out how to think something you cannot think, please let us all know.
I am not speculating, I am merely acknowledging our ignorance.And you mock flying hippos, but the point is that whatever baseless speculation produces, the hippos - and any and every other baseless thing else - are equally justified.
I have not provided a story, I have referred to revelation and that revelation provides an alternative means to acquire knowledge. Personally I don't attach a narrative, or story to it.The only thing that favours your story is you.
I don't profess to know the answer to the EOG, it is largely irrelevant to me. I am commenting on statements affirming an answer to the question and that rational thought can't answer it. I do accept though that it may be possible to answer it through personal revelation and that those who claim to have done this are not to be dismissed as weak willed, or to have fallen into a psychological trap of thinking a concept of a God somehow justifies a belief in that God, or conviction in its existence.And that's not proof in any sense of the existence of your God.
Quite, religious doctrine and revelation have often been bent to the purposes of manipulative people and groups. Religion has a lot to answer for.Not all, but many.
I qualified that statement limiting it to the attempts by some to label believers as mistaken, weak willed (requiring a religious crutch), or subject to a psychological trait, or conditioning of believing a set of concepts as proving something to be true in the external world."Atheist apologetics!?" Is that your phrase for knowledge and the limits of it?
I prefer to limit belief to the tangible things in my everyday life.You can believe what you like.
I am rigorous in my reasoning. Are you able to provide knowledge of our origins?So if you want to believe nonsense is knowledge, there's no help for you unless you want it.
I think you misunderstand me.But such is an obscenity.
You use words like "metaphysics," existence," "wonder," "God," "consicous" and "consciousness" all in peculiar and almost incoherent ways. Stop playing the fool and provide some understanding. Last call. — tim wood
you are claiming that there is no God. — 3017amen
Btw, I have no idea what your point is, or what you're arguing. Good job of making nonsense! — tim wood
I think the idea of god stalls philosophical discussion since it "solves" many of the unknowns with which philosophy deals. In my opinion, you cannot do philosophy when you assume a supernatural entity is the main cause of existence. You can believe in god and do philosophy, but your philosophy cannot be based on the existence of god. — Daniel
So, why have as an objective of one's philosophy proving the existence of god or why use the existence of god as one's philosophical foundation? — Daniel
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.