And you're asked a direct question that you do not answer — tim wood

Evil/Sin means the same thing. Both are transgressions against the human ideal of perfection. Think of it as the metaphorical tree of knowledge. We are barred from figuring things out perfectly.

Does that not compute for you?

If you're not interested, then I'm not interested. You clearly are not interested. Over. And out.

Be well Timmy!

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.

No offense taken, but I'm genuinely confused how you got the impression I was talking about burden of proof or the claim that there are no gods. I was talking about the notion of a "necessary fact", a "necessary being", or a being that "exists necessarily" (as in the "ontological argument" for the existence of God)- logical necessity doesn't attach to facts, beings, or existence, and so these phrases are category errors, like Chomsky's furiously sleeping green ideas.

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)

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

Not so much. The contesting claims have to have some parity between them. But there's a somewhat deeper matter. Denial of implies possibility of. Denial of the possibility of, on the other hand, is different and and conclusive. For most of us, "God" is defined as incomprehensible, unknowable, all-this, all-that, incomparable, and so on. For God to exist in any material sense at all, he must be knowable in that sense. But on that instant he breaks the definition. If God is not knowable in any material sense, then how can he be known at all? Well, the answer to that is as an idea, but then again, if known by idea, then constrained by idea.

That leaves "God" as an undefined term.

"God" is just a word that names something to be accepted on faith. All kinds of people fail to understand the power inherent in the faith in a thing, as opposed to the supposed reality of that same thing. Many of them post here.

Not so much.

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).

180 likes to drop F-bombs — 3017amen

You like to argue with words you've put in my mouth rather than with those I actually use. Troll is as troll does, I guess. TAKE YOUR MEDS. :shade:

"God" is just a word that names something to be accepted on faith. — tim wood

Discovering what caused the big bang is improbable, but by no means is that non-existent.

Proposing that the big bang didn't just pop up, and that something led to it's being, is by no means unreasonable.

Therefore, you have no means to reduce my reasonable and rational guess to faithfulness.

The big bang "just popping up" is stage 2 without stage 1 logic. Hypothesises of stage 1, are again, not faithfulness, but reasonable and rational; there is at least some illusion element if the super-event did "just pop up."

I find it sillier when posters here suggest that the big bang came from nothing, because that's a jump from void (this jump requires an explanation; and if we can't explain that, it doesn't make our guesswork stupid; just unverifiable).

Claiming that exact void is all that was before the big bang, is hypocritical if we're listening to your proposal; that's exactly the same as saying the Christian God created the universe, but there is no creativity attached (to the character of the void).

There's a lot missing from our understanding of how the universe began; the big bang theory is water-tight, but on earlier times humans are inept.

Discovering what caused the big bang is improbable, but by no means is that non-existent. — opt-ae

Are we right to infer that for you there is a) a big bang, b) it was caused, c) the cause of the big bang was God, and d) you know all this?

No, a) and b), only.

As long as you're not responding with, "because we (a tiny spec in the grand cosmos) can't find evidence for, nor understand what happened before the big bang, it can only be nothing, or it can't be" I'm happy to discuss or debate this.

I suppose being a troll is better than you dropping the F-bomb. Hey looky there, your character score is improving LOL

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

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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

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.

Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we? — 3017amen

Please try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it.

Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer? — 3017amen

Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies.

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

You haven't defined what a god is and in the process display its coherency, reality, as well as possibly even worship ability. Are you committing me to a semantics game of, "things exist and those are god." Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing.

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?

Easily? 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. Are you contemplating suicide? 1-800-273-8255

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

There are experiences we possess and biological reasons that have linkages too said experiences. Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? Like I said, a mirage still exists it's just the interpretation of said phenomenon that people get wrong. Also you're using a word, "metaphysical", that i'm not sure you understand how to use.

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

Are there causes for everything? First, define CAUSATION. Here's a start given you seem to not want to indulge in the metaphysics/physics relating to the concept.

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

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).

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.

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.

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

Perhaps, thank you for the response and possible clarification.

At this point i'm an ignostic. — 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.

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

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.

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

Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away.

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

You mean materialism?

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

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

try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it. — substantivalism

I'm not exactly sure, but let me try. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the 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?

Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies. — substantivalism

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.

Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing. — substantivalism

I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework.

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

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?

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

Think about the nature of what it means to have goals & desires. Are they metaphysical features 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.

Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? — substantivalism

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?

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

Near as I can tell, 3017amen is no one to interact with at all. And I'm putting it a nicely as possible.

All trash, not a single good one

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

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?

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

I guess ignostic would usually best describe my true position but having people call me an atheist is easier as well as more well known. Most of us are ignostic until the term (god) is defined.

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.

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

i.e. 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.

Do I understand you correctly?

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

:up:

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

Define god. Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date.

Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away. — 3017amen

Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective?

You mean materialism? — 3017amen

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.

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

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.

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

Somewhat, given all these problems have actual solutions to be investigated and we aren't just indulging in semantic games or problems best dwelt with by meta-metaphysics (something which is, not a joke, exists).

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

Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems.

I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework. — 3017amen

I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD.

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

Atheist. . . 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?

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

"Who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. . ." 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. Differences in terms of descriptions rather than ontology.

Thank you for baiting me with further vaguely put together statements. "Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide?" Never claimed this was an all encompassing reason for not committing suicide nor is it sufficient/necessary for every person but that these probably do go into it. Logically if you didn't want to die (desire) and focusing psychologically on future goals was the ONLY way you didn't kill yourself then it would be the action that person would undertake objectively to not commit suicide. 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.

Why do you want me to commit suicide so badly?

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 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?

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?

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

It doesn't matter if people who are physicalists (YOU NEED TO DEFINE THIS) have an explanation for how it arises here but that when you say it "nor is it something that confers any biological advantages" you need to support this claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to form given our understanding of say chemistry, neurobiology, physics, psychology, evolution, etc. Also the argument,

1. This feature confers immediately clear no biological advantage.

Doesn't lead to,

2. Therefore it couldn't have formed biologically.

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. Also, cave men weren't trying to do gravitational calculus but the critical thinking skills they used in their day to day lives to survive were latter used in one form or an updated way to formulate gravitational calculus. The thinking skills lead to calculus not the other way around otherwise you're inserting intended purpose where there doesn't seem to be any. It starts as some animals having shown learning skills in constructing tools which provide better outcomes in terms of getting food. This then leads to perhaps as some point a rudimentary understanding of how plants grow leading to agriculture then sedentary lifestyles then LESS of a focus on surviving and putting said CRITICAL thinking skills to working on issues or problems you see as having no biological advantage.

Don't tell me what "seems" to not be material when you haven't really mentioned a definition of physicalism/materialism nor have YOU mentioned, to be discussed, supervenient/non-reductive forms of physicalism.

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

It basically stops them from seemingly always trying to prove they can see into your mind before you even open your mouth.

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.

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.

And the bottom line about burden of proof is that its a procedural principle, a convention, so there isn't really any fact of the matter there, the burden of proof in a given context just is what the participants agree that it is. And lacking explicit specification to contrary, its usually assumed burden of proof is neutral and so applies equally to all participants and any claims/arguments they may make, regardless of their content or whether they are positive or negative claims, and so on.

I can go to another forum. This one is not very friendly. — Athena

We must be doing something right then ...

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

And I concur as I've pointed out here.

'Adieu' if you must go (please take a few trolls with you).

:death: :flower:

Hahaha. I don't think stage 2 'big bang', can happen without stage 1 'preparation'.

My proposition is only that there was stage prior to the bigness, and the bang, of the the big bang; and your proposition is that the big bang, got big, and banged, randomly(what is this?)

My guess is that during this 'preparation stage' was the perfect male, who hunted for the perfect female, and their relationship resulted in the big bang.

I don't feel stupid for suggesting this, I feel inept.

My proposition is understandable, based on the fact that things don't just get big, and bang, from nothing (and if they do, there is at least a part missing from the big bang theory; how it got to stage 2(big, bang)).

We may be inept to answer this question; this may be a one-off. We (humanity) are tiny in comparison to the universe, not to mention what could be existence.

Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date. — substantivalism

Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes?

Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective? — substantivalism

Are you referring to medical science or psychology?

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

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 remains just another belief system. Just like your belief system.

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

No exceptions taken.

Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems. — substantivalism

There is no reason not to is there?

I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD. — substantivalism

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

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

Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical?

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

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?

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

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?

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

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.

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

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?

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. 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

Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes? — 3017amen

No some parts of consciousness may be non-reductive to their physical counterparts or be entirely different substances (or have different ontological grounding, sufficient reasoning, intrinsic properties, etc). Metaphysical attributes of god? What attributes, maybe you could DEFINE IT.

Are you referring to medical science or psychology? — 3017amen

Both.

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

Then it isn't physicalism it's panpscychism. Also, define what physicalism is.

No exceptions taken. — 3017amen

What?

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

I'm actually an ignostic in this discussion now because you haven't defined god. DEFINE GOD.

I don't need to know the mind of god only the mind and concepts used by a particular theist trying to argue for a particular ontological entity.

You mean occasionalism? With respect to god being causative. Know your terms.

Something can't come from nothing therefore there was always something.

Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical? — 3017amen

Does it exist in reality and or is an activity executed by entities that exist? Then it's STUDIED by metaphysicians/physicists. It isn't just metaphysical?

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

Not every feature of an animals growth of evolution has to 100% always benefit it. There are little biological advantages to your appendix and perhaps it once did have a use but now it doesn't. Still fully explained by evolution. Remember the critical thinking skills that lead to better survival given sedentary/agricultural life styles later gave rise to these thoughts not the other way around. Stop talking like a stereotypical creationist.

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

How would a person who desired to not live and made it their goal continue surviving?

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

Prove it. Also it seems you still don't want to discuss substance metaphysics and would rather keep using a discipline to talk about what ontological things exist?

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

1. Yes, let's investigate that with scientifc, mathematical, and metaphysical rigor. I never said it was both true and false at the same time I don't know whether it is true or false which isn't equivalent to the positive claim that it is true/false at the same time. This is a claim about my amount of knowledge required to answer the question. . . not an answer to the question.
2. Are asking about wonderment or how we build causal intuitions? Make up your mind and stop gish galloping.
3. Where does the knowledge exist?

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

How is instinct all that's needed for existence? Evidence is needed on your part to support this it's a claim about physics, chemistry, psychology, and evolutionary biology of which you don't seem to know much about.

Here's the thing, people who exercise love and those that don't survive making them both fit for their environments. Cave men had no knowledge of calculus but survived and people today become experts in it but also survive so in both scenarios THEY WERE FIT FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Natural selection isn't just bad evolved traits or good ones but also neutral traits that may or may not impact at some time your survival rate. So people without said traits would be said to perhaps evolve just as fit as those with them and good/bad traits could later serve no use.

BUT you forget that you are dodging once more and continue to assert that "evolution -> calculus" when in reality your missing a step "evolution -> critical thinking skills/abstract reasoning -> calculus". Evolution does not preclude at any level that formation of traits or behaviors that may not benefit the organism but also not be detrimental perhaps given they have previously selected traits which assist in the growths of others. Our ancestors ability to create traps or out smart predators is vaguely still the same thinking used for calculus but you continue to assert that critical thinking/abstract thinking serves no survival advantage. Though, to survive in our concrete jungles today you are required to know these thing lest you not get the best jobs available, survival of the fittest at work again.

As far as i see it god is everything. Think of it in terms you wouldnt be here if your parents werent, they wouldnt be there if their parents werent around, none of us would be here if our species failed and none of this at all would be here if earth didnt meet the very specific rewuirements to harbor life. Any and everything you can trace back further and further like ripples in a pool you dont get one ripple withough the one before it and you dont get any of them without the rock you had to drop in the water to start it all, therefore making everything an expression of the grand picture or "god"