Because I expect it's not to most theists, who are not theists because they were convinced by faulty metaphysical arguments that there must exist some boring piece of metaphysical machinery to enable the existence of the ordinary universe, — Pfhorrest

Forrest!

Are you denying your own metaphysical conscious existence? Surely that could not be objectively true!

Surely that could not be objectively true! — 3017amen

It’s objectively true that I’m conscious. I suspect like kaarl you’re conflating epistemology with ontology. Just because you don’t know for sure what’s going on in my mind doesn’t mean there’s no truth about it.

objectively true that I’m conscious. I suspect like kaarl you’re conflating epistemology with ontology. Just because you don’t know for sure what’s going on in my mind doesn’t mean there’s no truth about it. — Pfhorrest

Not so fast. If we're talking about the nature of your own conscious existence is that not a metaphysical truth?

sSory but I lost sight of this thread I'll be happy to debate EOG with you!

To start with, the definition of God as the source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God.

I agree that that is a reasonable definition. But the atheists will shoot holes in it with hippopotami, or flying spaghetti monsters. All you have to do to make them ineffectual is add the word necessary, so;

"The definition of God as the necessary source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God."

Better still, if you identify a being which is incontrovertibly necessary for you to have a belief in God, namely yourself. Then you have identified a necessary being that undeniably exists. Then all you have to do is understand how you are yourself God. Indeed, it couldn't be any other way. In reality it is the atheists and scientismists who are deluded, distracted by this physical world we find ourselves in, to such an extent that they think that this world we find ourselves in is all there is. Even when they know that no one has a clue as to how we got here, or to our origins.

As for pure atheism, I don't think it can be defended. We are not in a position to say 'God does not exist'. Such a position, I believe, cannot be defended. Ultimately, agnosticism is the only non theist position.

Quite.

If we're talking about the nature of your own conscious existence is that not a metaphysical truth? — 3017amen

I'm not clear what you mean by "metaphysical truth" exactly but it's a truth of some kind, an objective one, in that any claim about it is either right or wrong, even though those claims are about what a subjective experience is like, and even if nobody but the person having those experiences can know whether those claims are true.

an objective one, in that any claim about it is either right or wrong, — Pfhorrest

Are you sure Forrest? Is my will to live or die, love or not love, wonder or not wonder, for example, qualify as an objective " right or wrong " proposition? In other words, what kind of truth's do those things represent (?).

I'm not sure (and I'm not sure if you're sure) whether you're talking about the fact that you have those states of mind, or a moral evaluation of the contents of those states of mind.

In either case, yes there is an objective right or wrong evaluation of them, that may or may not be practical to figure out, or in practice accessible to anyone but yourself.

In other words, what kind of truth's do those things represent (?). — 3017amen

This makes me think you're wondering about moral evaluations of the contents, in which case that question is the topic of meta-ethics, about which I have a thread going right now, and my answer to which became the focus of another recent thread.

I'm not sure (and I'm not sure if you're sure) whether you're talking about the fact that you have those states of mind, or a moral evaluation of the contents of those states of mind.

In either case, yes there is an objective right or wrong evaluation of them, that may or may not be practical to figure out, or in practice accessible to anyone but yourself. — Pfhorrest

Wait a minute, I thought you said you're sure that objectivity can explain those things that exist? I won't give you a free pass on that one so we'll come back to that.

In the meantime, you seem to be hung up on epistemology/ontology as an exclusive means and method for complete understanding about the nature of these existing things. Let's start with simple definitions again;

Love: ontological, epistemological, logical, ethical/moral, metaphysical, phenomenological?

The Will : [ insert domain's?]

Wonder : [ insert domain's?]

Causation : [ ?]

Sentience : [?]

So using your approach or default mechanism toward objectivity, tell me which domain can best explain the reason for my will to live or die?

Which domain can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

Which domain can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

Which domain can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

Which domain can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which domain is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things in themselves.

Wait a minute, I thought you said you're sure that objectivity can explain those things that exist? — 3017amen

Yes? I’m having a hard time following your sentence structures. There are objective answers to questions about those things. Where have I ever said otherwise?

I don’t understand the rest of your questions about domains. Asking why you have all those mental states is a psychological mental question. I don’t know the full psychological answer to them, especially because each answer would involve particulars about your life that I don’t know. But that doesn’t mean the answers to them aren’t objective, i.e. there is one correct answer that everyone should give to the questions about you, even if the answers about themselves are different, even if they don’t know the answers about you, etc.

There are objective answers to questions about those things. Where have I ever said otherwise? — Pfhorrest

Great. I'll wait for your answers to those questions about the nature of those things we are parsing.

Asking why you have all those mental states is a psychological mental question. I don’t know the full psychological answer to them, especially because each answer would involve particulars about your life that I don’t know — Pfhorrest

Wait a minute I don't understand. I thought you said you knew everything objectively?

But that doesn’t mean the answers to them aren’t objective, i.e. there is one correct answer that everyone should give to the questions about you, even if the answers about themselves are different, even if they don’t know the answers about you, etc. — Pfhorrest

But would that not suggest omnipotence of some sort? Do you have that capability through your objective (analytical) abilities?

Objectivity doesnt have to do with right or wrong, it just means descriptive.

What's new pussycat, [insert Tom Jones]!

Forgive me but I couldn't resist, I'm getting punch drunk.

If it only has to do with a description of a thing or object, what if I'm unable to describe the thing or the object accurately? Does it become right, wrong or something else entirely?

:grin:
I dont think we can describe anything accurately, but even if we did, we would be talking about a correct/right description, and not a correct/right answer or evaluation. What does a right answer even mean or look like, in terms of love like you ask, anyway???

To start with, the definition of God as the source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God. — EnPassant

Not good enough.
For X to be necessary in general, X must figure in all possible worlds. What do all possible worlds have in common? Say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world (however boring). Want to continue finding commonalities among whatever possible worlds, in order to narrow down your definition? You won't find anything alive thinking dishing out commands to mankind (worthy of of worship), or Shiva, or Yahweh, down that path. It's a line of thinking reminiscent of (neo)Platonic theologizing.
Well, your definition isn't anything I'd call God or a god at least.

dont think we can describe anything accurately, but even if we did, we would be talking about a correct/right description, and not a correct/right answer or evaluation. What does a right answer even mean or look like, in terms of love like you ask, anyway??? — Pussycat

Thanks I'm glad you appreciate my odd sense of humor :grin:

Anyway I'm not so sure about that. Of course if something questioned is not described correctly, then objectively it becomes a wrong description.

In terms of trying to describe love objectively; it would be wrong to say the existence of love can only be described objectively.

In cognition, obviously some metaphysical features we experience from love are primarily phenomenological. But the nature of love's existence surely cannot be described or explained correctly as objectivity could it?

i told you that by objectively, i mean descriptive, and so to describe objectively i take it to mean describe descriptively :joke: Describe is just describe, like science does, in contrast to prescribe. But lets say that there are a number of ways to describe, what would those be? (Hope you had enough already! :eyes: )

Great. I'll wait for your answers to those questions about the nature of those things we are parsing. — 3017amen

How many times to I have to tell you that there being an answer doesn't mean anyone knows the answer?

I don't know the answers to those things. But there are answers. Because to assume otherwise is simply not to try to answer them.

Wait a minute I don't understand. I thought you said you knew everything objectively? — 3017amen

Now I'm starting to feel trolled. I never said I know or that anyone knows, just that it can be known. Do you not understand the difference between "can" and "is"?

How many fingers I'm holding up right now? Is there some correct answer to that question? Since you can't see me, the answer to the first is "I don't know", but the answer to the second is still "yes", because I am holding up some number of fingers, and anyone who guesses a different number is guessing wrong, and anyone who guesses the number of fingers I'm holding up is guessing right, but nevertheless nobody knows. "Unknown" doesn't mean "neither right nor wrong".

How many times do I have to say that?

But would that not suggest omnipotence of some sort? — 3017amen

Only if for something to be true it has to be known. But it doesn't. Things can be true, but not known. Like see above. There doesn't have to be some omnipotent being for there to be a specific objectively correct number of fingers I'm holding up despite that nobody knows how many that is.

Objectivity doesnt have to do with right or wrong, it just means descriptive. — Pussycat

"Objective" absolutely does not mean "descriptive". That redefinition would just prima facie rule out any possibility of objective morality, or subjective reality. A prescription can conceivably be objectively correct, and a description can conceivably be only subjectively correct.

"Objective" just means "without bias": correct or incorrect without regard to any point of view. (But not without regard to the contents of the state of affairs being evaluated: who or what you're talking about, when and where they are, etc, can make a difference in what is correct or incorrect to say about them. But whatever is correct to say about them, is correct for everyone to say about them, and incorrect for anyone to say contrary).

And "right and wrong" can mean either "true or false" or "good or bad".

People kill people. Is that true? Yes.
People kill people. Is that good? No.
People kill people. Is that right? That depends on whether you mean "right" as in "true" ("yes that's right, people do kill people") or "right" as in "good" ("no that's wrong, people oughtn't kill people").

What is each contingent thing has as its source some other contingent thing, such that there are no non-contingent things? What then is God? — Pfhorrest

Contingent means there must be a preceding substance. For example, matter cannot exist without the preexistence of energy. It is not possible to have a property (contingent thing) without substance. Properties can only be a property of a substance in the way that matter is (sometimes) a property of energy

If the Big Bang turns out to be the source of all contingent things, and is not a person or in any way at all like a mythical deity, just some impersonal cosmic event, would you call that "God"? I don't think many would. — Pfhorrest

I'm saying that in order to establish an eternal source it is only necessary to argue that that source/substance must exist. Thereafter it is possible to argue that that substance is mind because the universe is mind-like. It is such because it is mathematical. See also The Fine Tuning Argument. Before talking about God it is easier to establish the existence of a necessary substance and work forward from there and ask questions such as:
Is this substance mind?
Is it a person?
Is it possible for this person to relate to humanity?
Can this person be concerned about what his/her creation does or becomes?
etc.

What I'm getting at here is whether you're okay with the notion of a God that is not a person, that doesn't have thoughts or feelings or wills, that can't hear prayers or issue commands, or judge souls after death, etc. It's just some thing that kicked off existence, and nothing more. Is that really enough to count as "God" to you? — Pfhorrest

No. See last answer.

Must it? [be contingent] Explain. — Pfhorrest

Because matter must have a preexisting substance, energy. Matter is not an ultimate substance, it is a condition that energy is sometimes in. The same may be true of what we call energy; it may be contingent on the existence of some deeper energetic reality. But ultimately this process of deconstruction cannot go on forever, there must be a necessary substance to keep contingent realities in existence.

which is why theism is untenable on any rational or empirical basis, and so is only held as a matter of faith — Enai De A Lukal

Theism is not dependent only on faith. It is a reasonable viewpoint.

They reasoned, in brief, that God is unknowable. — tim wood

Faith also teaches that it is possible to know God. So 'unknowable' must be qualified. Faith says that it is possible to know God as a person but that does not mitigate against the argument that God is ultimately unknowable by human beings. In other words, God can be known as a person but not fully knowable by the human mind.

The claim, then, that God exists is for oh, so many reasons an exhibition of ignorance at the very best. — tim wood

Claiming that God exists and claiming that God is (completely) knowable are not the same thing.

Objective" just means "without bias": correct or incorrect without regard to any point of view. (But not without regard to the contents of the state of affairs being evaluated: who or what you're talking about, when and where they are, etc, can make a difference in what is correct or incorrect to say about them. But whatever is correct to say about them, is correct for everyone to say about them, and incorrect for anyone to say contrary). — Pfhorrest

Can something that is objective be, at the same time, incorrect?
Is there such thing as "without bias"?

But lets say that there are a number of ways to describe, what would those be? — Pussycat

Sure, phenomenologically? Example: the ineffable experience. Kind of a paradox, no?

Faith also teaches that it is possible to know God. So 'unknowable' must be qualified. — EnPassant

No, it doesn't. It's the "know" that has to be qualified. Clearly to know something as something that it isn't is not knowing that thing.

Claiming that God exists and claiming that God is (completely) knowable are not the same thing. — EnPassant

It's not my argument. And no one claims you cannot know God completely. The argument is that "God" as defined/understood cannot be known at all. For a thing to exist it must have predicates. That is, if God exists there must be some set of sentences starting with "God is" that can be meaningfully completed. But each is also a limitation.

But there is a way. The only way God can exist is as a regulative idea. That's how I find "him." It also gives teeth to the "made in his own image," teeth with some substance and bite. It also satisfies your "know" above.

How many times to I have to tell you that there being an answer doesn't mean anyone knows the answer?

I don't know the answers to those things. But there are answers. Because to assume otherwise is simply not to try to answer them. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps we are talking past each other. let me copy my questions to you again. I mean, come on, you're a philosopher, let's dive into one of these domains and parse the concept(s) accordingly:

Concepts:

Love: ontological, epistemological, logical, ethical/moral, metaphysical, phenomenological?

The Will : [ insert domain's?]

Wonder : [ insert domain's?]

Causation : [ ?]

Sentience : [?]

So using your approach or default mechanism toward objectivity, tell me which domain can best explain the reason for my will to live or die?

Which domain can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

Which domain can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

Which domain can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

Which domain can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which domain is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things in themselves.

Unknown" doesn't mean "neither right nor wrong". — Pfhorrest

I'm not understanding. Philosophically, what does 'Unknown' mean then? That is an important question with respect to your OP is it not?

Things can be true, but not known. — Pfhorrest

Interesting. I think we are making progress. Do you have examples of existential things that are true but are unknown? Let's take the Will for example. It seems like it is true you have a Will, yet the nature of such is unknown correct?

But ultimately this process of deconstruction cannot go on forever, there must be a necessary substance to keep contingent realities in existence. — EnPassant

This is the main point of contention that you seemed to just brush past in the first part of your reply. Why can’t it go on forever? Every contingent thing has a source. Sometimes that source is another contingent thing. Which might in turn be sourced to another contingent thing. Why at some point must it be different? Why not an infinite string of contingent things sourced from other continent things?

And even if for some reason that’s not possible, how do you decide at what point it has to stop? If you get back to God, why can’t you ask where God came from? And conversely, if you can just stop at God, why not just stop at energy, or spacetime, etc?

Can something that is objective be, at the same time, incorrect?
Is there such thing as "without bias"? — Pussycat

Something can be objectively incorrect, sure.

And we may not in practice be able to eliminate all bias, but me can move arbitrarily far in the direction of less bias, and have a notion of the unbiased ideal we are moving toward.

Interesting. I think we are making progress. Do you have examples of existential things that are true but are unknown? Let's take the Will for example. It seems like it is true you have a Will, yet the nature of such is unknown correct? — 3017amen

I can’t tell you that something in particular is true but unknown, because I would have to know that it is true to tell you that.

But I’ve given several examples already:

There’s something in a box. We don’t know what. Nevertheless some guesses will be correct and some will be incorrect, because there is some truth about what’s in the box, even though we don’t know what it is.

I’m holding up some number of fingers. You can’t see me so you don’t know how many that us. But still there is some true number of fingers I’m holding up, and your guesses would be objectively right or wrong because of that, even though you don’t know.

can’t tell you that something in particular is true but unknown, because I would have to know that it is true to tell you that. — Pfhorrest

Are you sure? Let's see, common sense says you have a will to live. So it is true you have a will.

But the nature of your will (how it really works, it's design, it's origin aka : the-thing-in-itself) is unknown.

Therefore, how is your forgoing quote correct?

Are you sure? Let's see, common sense says you have a will to live. So it is true you have a will. — 3017amen

What is this bs? Obviously.

How could anyone even question your incredible logic?

Though you might want to be a little more precise in what you are referencing... "will to live"? "will"?

But the nature of your will (how it really works, it's design, it's origin aka : the-thing-in-itself) is unknown. — 3017amen

The nature of it may be unknown (I don’t think so, but that doesn’t matter here), but there is some true nature of it anyway. That true nature is true (duh), even if we don’t know it.

The nature of it may be unknown (I don’t think so, but that doesn’t matter here), but there is some true nature of it anyway. That true nature is true (duh), even if we don’t know it. — Pfhorrest

Interesting. Why don't you think so? Please share your theory, if you have one.