And you're asked a direct question that you do not answer — tim wood
I still do not understand for certain what you are saying, but it sounds a lot like: If you assert "there are no gods"...no burden of proof arises.
I doubt you would find many logicians who would agree.
If I have misunderstood your position, Enai, I apolgize.
But certainly in most contexts burden of proof applies to any claim, positive or negative, and so asserting that no gods exist carries a burden of proof like any other assertion. — Enai De A Lukal
Yep. That's how burden of proof works in most contexts, though there are obviously some exceptions where burden of proof is stipulated to rest on one side rather than the other- so, in a criminal legal proceeding (where the burden rests with the prosecution), or certain debate setups. But in the context of a discussion board like this, burden of proof is neutral, and so applies to any claim or position, positive or negative, theistic or atheistic or otherwise. And so the popular canard that "the burden of proof rests on theism" is only partially true- the burden of proof rests on theism... when theistic claims are made. When other sorts of claims are made (atheistic ones, for instance), the burden of proof rests on those claims as well. The good news is, atheistic claims can much more easily meet this burden, since they tend to have the benefit of the weight of the evidence in their favor (unlike theistic claims).Not so much.
"God" is just a word that names something to be accepted on faith. — tim wood
One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? — 3017amen
Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? For some reason, you're not the only one (atheist) who can't answer those questions (180 was pivoting on them too LOL). — 3017amen
It seems as though both of you cannot even explain the existence and non-existence of those things in themselves. How does atheism square the circle? LOL — 3017amen
Well, two succinct points:
1. Ethics invokes God form philosophy class 101. I didn't personally design the curriculum.
2. With respect to pragmatics sure, what is the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated. Christian Philosophy, no (NT/Mathew)? — 3017amen
Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we? — 3017amen
Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer? — 3017amen
Nice. Well there's a start. It could be any of those domains because they cover the nature of existing things, or the reality of nature, however you want to phrase it. The spectrum is broad, from cosmology to the human condition and everything in between. That's germane to the entire concept of a God, no?
With that said, why would you want to live when you can easily choose not to live? Sounds a bit nihilistic or existential, but your Will provides for that option. — 3017amen
Great, thanks again for engaging. Let's talk about love, shall we? Firstly, can we agree that there are elements or phenomena associated with Love that are Metaphysical? — 3017amen
Great, thanks for engaging. Let's look at what Kant said initially, in the form of a three part question.
1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible? — 3017amen
Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.
Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things.. — 3017amen
Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence?
— 3017amen
No, and as I already said, it’s arguing in bad faith to even suggest that you might. That’s not how reasoned discourse works, and your petty schoolyard attempts at shaming others into engagement won’t work here. — Pfhorrest
Has he/she done this is other threads and in past engagements? Is he/she a troll that shouldn't be feed or is he/she merely a person with rather difficult social skills. — substantivalism
Recently (past week or two?) they've been doing this to me and 180 Proof in at least two or three threads here. I haven't had any noted problem with them before that. Maybe just having a hard time with the COVID and all. — Pfhorrest
At this point i'm an ignostic. — substantivalism
You haven't defined what a god is so I can't specify whether it doesn't exist, it's improbable, or the arguments for it are lacking. At this point i'm an ignostic. — substantivalism
You gave questions that concern whether we are talking about our ability to know them (epistemology), our psychology, or our social connections which go into influence/form said abilities/ideas. You are doing what you seem to do best and dodge any of my questions aimed at specifying/clarifying the discussion. This is a rather dishonest move on your part and perhaps it is inherent in who you are. — substantivalism
You also haven't honestly answered any of my clarifying questions and have merely dodged so that we cannot have a legitimate discussion. Can you even define physicalism? — substantivalism
Okay, if I recall the golden rule came from certain eastern philosophies starkly pre-dating christianity. Also, you didn't seem to get a good balance of perspectives from you philosophy 101 course. — substantivalism
try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it. — substantivalism
Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies. — substantivalism
Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing. — substantivalism
You have to define a WILL coherently. Is a loosely defined soul or is just your inner conscious thoughts or does it include unconscious ones as well? — substantivalism
Choosing not to live isn't easy it compromises all of my desires or learned experiences as well as future goals I possess. There are relationships I've created I do not desire to leave and there are experiences or actions I still wish to undertake — substantivalism
Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? — substantivalism
Has he/she done this is other threads and in past engagements? Is he/she a troll that shouldn't be feed or is he/she merely a person with rather difficult social skills. — substantivalism
Define concrete. Why does it confer any biological advantages? Do you have scientific/philosophical evidence/reasons to substantiate such a claim?
Atheism is the either an admittance of the non-existence of a god (WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED) or the lack of belief in one similar to how others use agnosticism though such a defined (agnostic) atheist perhaps wouldn't claim it's impossible to know such a thing exists. GIVEN YOU HAVE DEFINED IT!
There are things that exist in reality and are separate from you. That's the most that I require in terms of substance metaphysics and from here perhaps we could interest ourselves in what things are emergent from other things or live in non-reductive states (investigate the nature of said entities). I'm unsure if this is neutral monism, materialism/physicalism, or an objective idealism but this is my loose perspective. Though, many parts (a huge number of them) largely correlate with extensively physical properties or relations in our world (however you define physical). Feel free to tell me when you can use your mind to defy our experience of being rooted to the ground by the phenomenon of gravitation (even objective idealism wouldn't do this but you get my point). — substantivalism
As a fellow ignostic I appreciate that you're trying to engage with 3017amen, but I doubt you'll achieve much. These folks are locked into their positions, and by asking them to give clear definitions to the words "God" and "existence" you are basically asking them to abandon everything they believe. — EricH
But certainly in most contexts burden of proof applies to any claim, positive or negative, and so asserting that no gods exist carries a burden of proof like any other assertion. But like I said, I wasn't talking about burden of proof, but about the incoherence of a certain class of claims and arguments about God (the "ontological argument" and its variations, and this terminology about "necessary" beings/existence/facts) — Enai De A Lukal
When other sorts of claims are made (atheistic ones, for instance), the burden of proof rests on those claims as well. — Enai De A Lukal
I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is. — 3017amen
Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away. — 3017amen
You mean materialism? — 3017amen
Are you suggesting that Eastern philosophy had mutually excluded Christian philosophy? Accordingly, the irony is, I would think having a 'good balance' would preclude your desire to dichotomize them. Perhaps a remedial course is appropriate here. LOL — 3017amen
I'm not exactly sure, but let me try. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and then purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. Does that square with your understanding? — 3017amen
That's a shame, Kant and Schopenhauer are very influential in there metaphysical theories. You are at a great disadvantage in this debate. You will be tested. Can you handle it, or will you cry foul, that will become the question. — 3017amen
I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework. — 3017amen
The Will is metaphysical in nature. Do you understand metaphysics? You know, kind of like the hard problem of consciousness. Atheist like to use the word qualia which by definition is appropriate here. Make sense? — 3017amen
Think about the nature of what it means to have goals & desires. are they metaphysical feature of conscious existence and self-awareness that higher forms of life possess? In other words, who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide? That makes no sense. — 3017amen
Sure. What is love? Physical, metaphysical or both?
Let me repost my causation questions to you. You didn't even attempt an answer:
1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible? — 3017amen
I'm not following your logic. here's what I asked you:
Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.
Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..
The feeling of the color red, music, mathematical ability, etc. confer little if any biological advantages. Get it? For example, would running gravitational calcs that explain the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle? — 3017amen
I used to call myself agnostic, but it never felt quite right. When I stumbled across ignosticism it was like the proverbial light bulb going on. If someone asks me my religion I will say ignostic and take the time to explain it.
In some ways ignosticism is even more threatening to theists than atheism - it negates all the counter arguments that you cannot prove that God does not exist. — EricH
I'd say less that burden of proof doesn't apply, and more that it may take different forms depending on the nature of the claim in question. So certainly, saying/showing how a given claim is incoherent would meet ones burden for rejecting or disputing that claim (one could hardly provide empirical counter-evidence against a genuinely incoherent claim- what would evidence for or against even look like if the claim is truly incoherent?), whereas if the claim in question was a coherent/well-formed factual claim, then some sort of empirical contrary evidence would probably be required.there is no burden of proof if the question is incoherent. God must not exist if God is definitionally incoherent. The only "proof" comes about from demonstrating this incoherence.
We must be doing something right then ...I can go to another forum. This one is not very friendly. — Athena
And I concur as I've pointed out here.Philosophy does not serve the State or the Church, who have other concerns. It serves no established power. The use of philosophy is to sadden. A philosophy that saddens no one, that annoys no one, is not a philosophy. It is useful for harming stupidity, for turning stupidity into something shameful. — Gilles Deleuze
Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date. — substantivalism
Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective? — substantivalism
Materialism is a much older and somewhat outdated term that is usually seen as synonymous with modern day philosophical approaches to defining physicalism. Materialism implies to me somewhat of an ancient outdated physics at attempting to understand the world through basic collisional mechanics (a la descarte). An ontology that most physicists definitely probably don't hold onto and have added onto their ontology many more entities those in previous philosophical traditions of materialism would have scoffed at. Again, DEFINE PHYSICALISM? You do it. — substantivalism
No, just that literally historically it came before it. They can have or possess overlapping features that perhaps were similar in many ways but different in others. — substantivalism
Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems. — substantivalism
I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD. — substantivalism
you mean most philosophers who care to actually discuss the topic use that term. DEFINE the WILL. Nothing is metaphysical (substance wise) there are things that are studied by metaphysicians and perhaps (under certain definitions of said disciplines) not studied by them. Is the study of metaphysics itself doing metaphysics? — substantivalism
If you designed the world perhaps that may be how it turned out but this is reality. . . the actual world. . . and it does contain things which act out being conscious as well as possess these desires/goals which themselves can be seen as highly complicated assemblages of instinctual effects but also past experiences, our self-awareness, our understanding of more complex concepts, etc. All of which i'm waiting for you say contradict evolution, physics, chemistry, our understanding of psychology, sociology, etc. — substantivalism
You need to always specify at least (simplified down) a goal together with desires with most actions as you usually do something to attain something else you instinctually, consciously, or un-consciously hope to attain. — substantivalism
see you are now ignorant of metaphysics as you keep using metaphysics as if it's a substance rather than just talk about substance metaphysics. Where do emergent phenomenon or reductive substances fit into your perspective? — substantivalism
1. It could be true and could be false. . . IF YOU DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSE. Until you define it I don't even know whether it's probable, improbable, logically contradictory, or likewise coherent. What is this causation you keep talking about OR GOD WHAT IS GOD HERE?
2. Intuition and past experiences. Many PHILOSOPHERS have used the idea that we see one experience always lead to another together with concrete solid waking experiences enforce perhaps a casual intuition. Whether this always extends (the hole argument in general relativity and certain interpretation of quantum mechanics) is a different unanswered question DEPENDING WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSATION.
3. Is it impossible to form in a mind? — substantivalism
Natural selection and survival of the fittest in evolutionary theory really only care about whether the animal survives or not in its environment. Even a reasonably over weight person in a tall building programming is surviving right now and thusly fit for his environment. Though, why CRITICAL thinking skills wouldn't be biologically/selectively preferred is up to you to support — substantivalism
Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes? — 3017amen
Are you referring to medical science or psychology? — 3017amen
Physicalism must accept that panpsychism is true. Meaning, in panpsychism, the belief is that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, however, it's remains just another belief system. Just like your belief system. — 3017amen
No exceptions taken. — 3017amen
I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.
Alternatively, some link God to causation. Accordingly, I would take no exceptions to that first-cause view of cosmology. For all we know, eternity and turtles were caused too :snicker: . There exists something; not nothing. Nevertheless, you must know something that we don't know, so please feel free to share LOL — 3017amen
Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical? — 3017amen
It contradicts Darwinism. There are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). And your point? — 3017amen
Why would this become a need, so that it precludes suicide? Seems like the logic of metaphysical necessity (your desires/goals) is causing you to stay alive then, no? — 3017amen
You may want to study Kant and Schopenhauer. (You've got to do the training to debate with me.) But to answer your question succinctly, emergence seems to work just fine with lower life forms, but not higher levels of conscious existence and self-awareness. — 3017amen
I'll enumerate them in a respective fashion:
1. Well then, there appears to be mystery to your physical existence, no? Otherwise, how can something be both true and false at the same time :snicker:
2. But that doesn't explain how your sense of wonderment works.
3.Not sure that's really a coherent answer, can you restate that please? — 3017amen
Sure. As I've mentioned previously, how does knowing the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle, when I have the ability to dodge falling objects without such knowledge? How does musical theory provide for survival of the fittest, how does your Will (desire /goals) provide for natural selection when instinct is all that's needed for existence, the feelings of Love are not required for survival either...etc.,etc. etc..
In consciousness, those metaphysical languages or phenomena are all quite perplexing, no?
LOL — 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.