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

Key!

Sure. Explain your will to live and not die?

If I didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection.

didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection. — Key

Surely you can do better than that! Meaning, all that's required in natural selection is instinct.

No will to live is required. Therefore, once again, explain to me your will to live and not die.

Will to live encapsulates many instincts... drink water? will to live? eat food? will to live? etc...

The three words "will to live" may only not be instincts because they're used to describe instincts.

all that's required in natural selection is instinct. — 3017amen

Also I'm not entirely sure that's a super-duper accurate statement...

Will to live encapsulates many instincts... drink water? will to live? eat food? will to live? etc...

The three words "will to live" may only not be instincts because they're used to describe instincts. — Key

Okay great! So should I interpret that as meaning the reason why you exist is to eat and drink?

Subtle distinction: I exist because I have a will to live that includes eating and drinking.

Also I'm not entirely sure that's true... — Key

Interesting. What is your theory then? The reason I ask is because if you don't understand emergent properties of animal instinct, nor your own features of existence/your will to live, how can you possibly make any factual statements about existing or non-existing things?

In other words,you say you exist but you don't know why or how, no? The nature of your own existence seems to be somewhat of an enigma I suppose...

exist because I have a will to live that consists of eating and drinking. — Key

What other things consist of this will to live? In principal, if you say ' nothing', then you are essentially relegating yourself to a lower life-form, right?

In other words,you say you exist but you don't know why or how, no? The nature of your own existence seems to be somewhat of an enigma I suppose... — 3017amen

Ohh, ohh, teacher, teacher I have the answer!

If I didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection. — Key

What other things consist of this will to live? In principal, if you say ' nothing', then you are essentially relegating yourself to a lower life-form, right? — 3017amen

I'm cool with that.

didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection. — Key

But why do you exist? All you've said so far is to eat and drink. If everyone thought that there would be no procreation hence you would not exist. I'm confused.

But why do you exist? All you've said so far is to eat and drink. If everyone thought that there would be no procreation hence you would not exist. I'm confused. — 3017amen

Oh my! Are we going in circles?!

Subtle distinction: I exist because I have a will to live that includes eating and drinking. — Key

I'm cool with that. — Key

Would you be okay if I hunted you for meat then LOL

Are we going in circles?! — Key

Don't include me in the mess you've made of your logic LOL

Would you be okay if I hunted you for meat then LOL — 3017amen

Don't include me in the mess you've made of your logic LOL — 3017amen

At last, I have found true love!

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. — tim wood

Well, if that's the argument it is wrong. Many mystics have known God's Presence.

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? — Pfhorrest

Contingent things are essentially properties. A property depends on substance to exist. Take a circle. It is a mathematical abstraction. As such you can't hold it up and show it to anyone; it does not exist. To make it exist you need to give it substance; draw it with graphite. Now the graphite is the substance of the concept of a circle and, having substance, the circle is made manifest. Contingent things are essentially properties, they cannot exist without substance and a regression of substanceless properties cannot exist because a property is a condition of some preceding existence. You are saying that reality can be made of a regression of essentially abstract properties without substance.

Besides, a regression of properties, p1, p2, p3, ... is really just one property. For example, you have a substance, energy and a property of energy, matter. This is how it goes:-

Energy -> p1 (atoms)
Energy -> p1 - > p2 (molecules)
Energy -> p1 - > p2 - > p3 (a cell)

But the distinction between atoms, molecules, and a cell is only by way of classification. In real terms there is only one property (p1 U p2 U p3) = P so

Energy -> P (cell)

The cell is just one complex property of energy. As far as contingency and properties are concerned P (cell) is all that is needed.

At last, I have found true love! — Key

Nice! What kind of love did you find LOL

Well, if that's the argument it is wrong. Many mystics have known God's Presence. — EnPassant

Oh, well, then. I writhe in the grip of your irresistible logic. Your argument speaks for itself.

Interesting. Why don't you think so? Please share your theory, if you have one. — 3017amen

That would be a huge tangent from this thread, and I plan to do another thread on it in the future anyway.

the graphite is the substance of the concept of a circle — EnPassant

But you’ll also say that graphite is contingent, no?

The cell is just one complex property of energy — EnPassant

And is that energy contingent or not?

Sure!

In the meantime, if you are unable to answer my questions I understand.

I will take your silence as acquiescence to the inability of making factual statements about existing and non-existing things.

But you’ll also say that graphite is contingent, no? — Pfhorrest

Yes, graphite, being a physical substance, is a property or is contingent.

And is that energy contingent or not? — Pfhorrest

Maybe it is. If energy, as we define it, is contingent upon some deeper substance/energy then that deeper substance is the substance of energy. But there may be an even deeper substance and so on for a bit. But only for a bit. The process of deconstruction cannot continue forever. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'.

A hydrogen atom is a concept or state. As such it is a physical image of energy. All material constructions are images of energy. That is because they are contingent. The Cosmological Argument says that contingent things must have a beginning. Otherwise there are only states without substance and I don't see how that can be.

I will take your silence as acquiescence to the inability of making factual statements about existing and non-existing things. — 3017amen

If you want to argue in bad faith, you do you. I’m out.

But there may be an even deeper substance and so on for a bit. But only for a bit. The process of deconstruction cannot continue forever. It cannot be 'turtles all the way down'. — EnPassant

Even if that was true, which it isn’t, how do you decide where to stop and say “this is the last turtle”? How do you know your God is the last turtle, or that energy or spacetime or the inflaton field or something like that isn’t?

The Cosmological Argument says that contingent things must have a beginning. Otherwise there are only states without substance and I d — EnPassant

The cosmological argument hinges entirely on not understanding predicate logic. Just because every mouse is afraid of some cat doesn’t mean there is one particular cat of whom all mice are afraid; each mouse might be afraid of a different cat. And just because everything comes from something doesn’t mean there is one particular thing from which all other things come; each thing can come from a different thing.

Okay, as you wish. Unfortunately, since you are throwing in the towel, my only conclusion here is, the fact of bringing to light your deficiencies in your arguments only substantiates my claim that you really don't seem to have a basic grasp of things like metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, etc..

Ironically, based upon the spirit of your OP/God, you seem to be afraid to answer those metaphysical/the nature of existence questions.

Even if that was true, which it isn’t, how do you decide where to stop and say “this is the last turtle”? How do you know your God is the last turtle, or that energy or spacetime or the inflation field or something like that isn’t? — Pfhorrest

What matters is that there is an initial substance. Contingent things are properties of that substance. As I said, first steps first. What I'm trying to establish first is that the universe is made/contingent. And it must be contingent upon some ultimate substance.

The question then becomes What is that substance? If it is a 'mind' and is conscious and intelligent then that is close to a definition of the traditional God.

And just because everything comes from something doesn’t mean there is one particular thing from which all other things come; each thing can come from a different thing. — Pfhorrest

That is unlikely because then you would have numerous sources and numerous eternal existences but then why would they be so congruent to each other? All these contingent things are the same in the sense that the are in the same reality and obey the laws of nature. They are made of the same stuff as far as we can tell. Tea cups and stars are made of the same thing, energy. So are mountains and oak trees. On the level of energy the universe is one thing, a field of energy.

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

If only this were true, eh? Unfortunately, utterly lacking in evidence as it is (and the arguments for God's existence being, without exception, either invalid or question-begging), it is dependent (almost completely) on faith, and is not a reasonable (i.e. sufficiently warranted) viewpoint. If it were, then for consistency's sake it would have to follow that pretty much anything is a reasonable viewpoint (regardless of the absence of positive evidence, or abundance of contrary evidence), and that anything goes- young earth creationism, flat earthism, moon landing denial, anti-vaxxism, and so on. But its not a reasonable viewpoint, and so we're not committed to such an unfortunate consequence (thankfully).

and that anything goes- young earth creationism, flat earthism, moon landing denial, anti-vaxxism, and so on. — Enai De A Lukal

You cannot seriously compare theism to flat earthism. Some of the best minds in history have presented very reasonably arguments for theism. It is a reasonable viewpoint.

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. — Pfhorrest

When we say that someone is biased (about something), we also mean that they are wrong, right? Or can a biased person somehow be right?

Thing is that there is no real criterion for bias, neither one can know whether they are biased. This is what I think anyway. And so, for me, objective, as you put it, is empty, or wishful thinking, at best. And so I prefer to think of objective and objectivity as "devoid of any value judgment", biased or not, right or wrong.