But it is a philosophical question by dint of being an existential issue for all humanity. — Punshhh

Explain how an ultimate "issue" makes an existential difference one way or another to proximate beings like us.

This heart within me I can feel, and I judge that it exists. This world I can touch, and I likewise judge that it exists. There ends all my knowledge, and the rest is construction. 

[ ... ]

I don’t know whether this world has a meaning that transcends it. But I know that I cannot know that meaning and that it is impossible for me just now to know it. What can a meaning outside my condition mean to me? I can understand only in human terms. What I touch, what resists me — that I understand. — Albert Camus

I'm persuaded by Camus that such "existential issues" are Absurd and thereby should not be allowed to distract us from living on human terms. I contemplate the CMB from time to time - those are occasions when I imagine myself, like Sisyphus, happy.

:death: :flower:

There is lived experience, events and agency involved. As such a theist is engaged in real/lived events, things inaccessible to the intellect, or intellectual analysis, because this analysis is limited, as the intellect is limited. — Punshhh

Indeed. I think it was in cognitive science's William James who said, in his book about The Varieties of Religious Experiences: "Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation.".

As such, in part, what you are talking about is ineffable experiences and/or phenomena. That phenomena extends into existential and metaphysical phenomena. For example, the feelings of Love, ecstasy, joy, peace, contentment, being that which you were born to be and do, a sense of oneness, so on and so forth, are all metaphysical features of conscious existence that confer little if any biological advantages, when emergent instinct is all that's otherwise needed to ensure survival.

So another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

Design or dust. And applications inaccessible to the intellect, a fortiori inaccessible to reason.

One way to view reason and science is as the effort to establish paths anterior. That is, given today, some yesterdays are not possible. Throw out reason and science and all yesterdays are possible - and for your soul, er, money, the marketplace will sell you one just for you, including none at all!

You're in the position of a man who claims he don't know, can't know - and thinks that settles the question. But that's the ignorance of lesser animals, which ignorance they live by. Once, however, you say either that you know or don't know, then the excuse of being a lesser animal is gone, for they neither ask nor answer.

For g/God, and especially in institutional form, minds lacking strength fall back into the supernatural. Others observe the idea, grow through it and retain what reason shows them can be of value.

It's always either reason or unreason. What's your pleasure? Or have you already told us it's unreason.

Or have you already told us it's unreason. — tim wood

Tim!

Think of it this way, your own existence is "unreasoned". So what's the difference?

Think of it this way, your own existence is "unreasoned". So what's the difference? — 3017amen

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it.

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

Interesting. Are you suggesting a subordination of objective reason? That's a rather important question here, no?

Subordination to what? And reason qua seems to me impervious to adjectives.

Subordination to what? — tim wood

Subordination to subjectivity. And your answer... ?

Define your terms, as it sits I have no idea what you mean.

Define your terms, as it sits I have no idea what you mean. — tim wood

Subjective truth v. objective truth. And your answer... ?

Subjective truth v. objective truth. And your answer... ? — 3017amen

My answer is you're on the nonsense and chaos road and I'm not interested in going that way. Do you know what reason is? With subj. and obj. are you asking about reason or it's subject matter/content?

Question for you: In your thinking, what is fundamental, your ground thought, that upon which you build, even if 99% of the time you're not explicitly conscious of it?

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

You are basically saying the difference between your lack of ability to use reason in explaining your own existence only matters to you yourself.

And so you must be subordinating Objectivity in favor of Subjectivity. And your answer is... ?

You are basically saying the difference between your lack of ability to use reason to explain your own existence only matters to you yourself.
And so you must be subordinating Objectivity in favor of Subjectivity. — 3017amen

Try English, amen, "difference between" usually calls for a dual of some kind. And we're still on reason. Per your usage, I have no evidence you know what that is. Nor have you deigned to offer definition or clarification of your terms.

So we'll do it your way, until I tire of it. Iggle blop wagge n iggle pooh. And, dearest, your answer is....?

The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

Okay, then let's break it down and start over to see how you use logic here in this context.. What do you mean when you say:

"The difference lies in what I (can) make of it."

What does "what I can make of it" mean? Does it mean, how you come to understand something?

Think of it this way, your own existence is "unreasoned". So what's the difference?
— 3017amen
The difference lies in what I (can) make of it. — tim wood

"The difference lies in what I (can) make of it."
What does "what I can make of it" mean? Does it mean, how you come to understand something? — 3017amen

Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding.

Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding. — tim wood

Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding?

Is my building better than another's? Depends on "better" and the how and for what of it. Primacy I wouldn't know - I suggest, amen, you stick with the simpler words; unsimple words can take you off course, sometimes violently.

Okay let's try again. You said:

Yes, and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood

" Great. And so are you suggesting that your understanding takes primacy over someone else's understanding? "

In other words Tim, are you suggesting that your own understanding is more important than someone else's understanding?

In other words Tim, are you suggesting that your own understanding is more important than someone else's understanding? — 3017amen

What do you mean by more important? If you're the building inspector for a town and I'm some clown who thinks he can plumb and do the electrical work in his own home himself - not actually knowing code or even how - then yes, your understanding is more important than mine. Is that what you meant?

What do you mean by more important? If you're the building inspector for a town and I'm some clown who thinks he can plumb and do the electrical work in his own home himself - not actually knowing code or even how - then yes, your understanding is more important than mine. Is that what you meant? — tim wood

Not really, but let's use your logic here. If the inspector's understanding is more important than yours and mine, how do you get to have better understanding?

how do you get to have better understanding? — 3017amen

By application and process.

I'm going to make an observation, not intended to offend. We have taken up foils for a match - for exercise perhaps. I'm at the line, but you're off in the distance carving zs and xs and os in the air with various flourishes. But not yet anywhere near close enough for even our blades to touch. Cross-examination, as at the moment you're asking and I'm answering, needs a purpose or some point. Try to start to approach it.

By application and process. — tim wood

Great. We are making progress, I think.

So, by your 'application and process' does that translate into experience? And would that suggest someone who has had a subjective religious experience has a deeper understanding than one who has not had such experience?

And if the answer to that question is 'yes', then is that primarily a subjective experience or an objective experience?

One reason that is such a critical question is because you stated that it is important for you yourself, to have understanding. That implies you feel that your own truth and understanding, is indeed more important than someone else's.

Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true?

So, by your 'application and process' does that translate into experience? And would that suggest someone who has a subjective religious experience has a deeper understanding than one who has not had such experience? — 3017amen

No. Knowledge of - which is in practical terms notoriously not experience. (Else why would anyone go the trouble of actually getting laid?) And no. Having experiences is just having experiences - understanding something different. Indeed, practice is that people who have had experiences often go to people who have not had those experiences in an effort to try to understand them. And this just the words. We'll get further faster and more directly if you get to the substance.

One reason that is such a critical question is because you stated that it is important for you yourself, to have understanding. That implies you feel that your own truth and understanding, is indeed more important than someone else's. — 3017amen

You, not me. Clearly and obviously it all depends on lots of things, here undetermined.

Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true? — 3017amen

Meaningless question, or at least unanswerable, until the terms are nailed down on all corners. And, sometimes.

Having experiences is just having experiences - understanding something different. Indeed, practice is that people who have had experiences often go to people who have not had those experiences in an effort to try to understand them. And this just the words. We'll get further faster and more directly if you get to the substance. — tim wood

Great. Let's look at how you yourself obtain your own understanding then.

How does your experiences effect your understanding about something?

You, not me. Clearly and obviously it all depends on lots of things, here undetermined. — tim wood

I'm not following you Tim. Are you now saying that my understanding is more important than yours?

Or in the alternative, you must be thinking that someone else's truth and/or understanding is just as important to them, as it is likewise to you. So help me out, which is it? Can both be true?
— 3017amen
Meaningless question, or at least unanswerable, until the terms are nailed down on all corners. And, sometimes. — tim wood

Really? Whose understanding is more important, yours or mine?

I'd go further than what Camus says as quoted above. I'm rather confused about what force an intrinsic/metaphysical "meaning" (whatever that is) would have even if we knew it did exist, so it's not even worth talking about. Like if an angel (or some advanced alien) approached me and told me I was created for a certain purpose, their existence will force me to change my scientific views, but not my values. Like I have certain interests and concerns (I value my friendships, I enjoy Japanese literature, and I have certain political views about society) What difference would be done to that if someone or something has an opinion on what I should do with my life, unless I was blackmailed into it. It's like as if someone's parents told their kids what to be when they grow up, why should you care about what they say?

Life is really just a string of moments of experience. If you define meaning/purpose as "it's worth spending those moments one way rather than another way" than I'm fine with these terms, but I don't see what's more complicated about it.

Great. Let's look at how you yourself obtain your own understanding then.
How does your experiences effect your understanding about something? — 3017amen

Understanding I take to be a species of translation. Experience can inform the accuracy of the translation, and inasmuch as understanding is both an itself and an abstraction, it seems to me the granularity of the experience can add - data, if you will - to understanding.

I'm not following you Tim. Are you now saying that my understanding is more important than yours? — 3017amen

What causes you to ask this. It's not part of any thought of mine. And I've asked you what "more important" means - which you've ignored. Are we back to wriggling and wroggleing?

Really? Who's understanding is more important, yours or mine? — 3017amen

Looks like we are. This question in this context is both incoherent and abusive. Get back on the path.

Like I have certain interests and concerns (I value my friendships, I enjoy Japanese literature, and I have certain political views about society) What difference would be done to that if someone or something has an opinion on what I should do with my life, unless I was blackmailed into it. It's like as if someone's parents told their kids what to be when they grow up, why should you care about what they say? — Saphsin

To stay on theme, are you suggesting that the kids have their own truth and own needs? Also, what does having " value" have any thing to do with our existence?

Understanding I take to be a species of translation. Experience can inform the accuracy of the translation, and inasmuch as understanding is both an itself and an abstraction, it seems to me the granularity of the experience can add - data, if you will - to understanding. — tim wood

Nice. Is having such an experience some sort of subjective understanding ? And what do you mean by abstraction, is that like metaphysical phenomena?

This question in this context is both incoherent and abusive. Get back on the path. — tim wood

Okay, you said :

and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood — 3017amen

So I'm getting confused, is your own understanding part of a subjective truth?

Nice. Is having such an experience some sort of subjective understanding ? And what do you mean by abstraction, is that like metaphysical phenomena? — 3017amen

I don't know about "such an" experience. And I have noted that experience and understanding are not the same thing. By abstraction, I mean that on one side, understanding is a thing-in-itself, on the other, about something that it itself is not. In this latter sense an abstraction. "Metaphysical phenomenon" I take to be incoherent word-salad - unless you can educate.

and the uses to which I put that understanding.
— tim wood
— 3017amen
So I'm getting confused, is your own understanding a subjective truth? — 3017amen

I keep asking you for clarity because I do not know either what you mean or what your words mean. You ignore the request but keep using the words - and that's abusive. And I strongly suspect you do not know what they mean either. What do you suppose truth is? And what would a subjective truth be?

If you cannot be clear, then you cannot understand your own thinking, nor will there be any truth in it. Lacking the which, your communication may sometimes have the appearance of coherence, but not be. Substance now or I shall be forced to conclude you're incoherent and to put my time to better use.

don't know about "such an" experience. And I have noted that experience and understanding are not the same thing. By abstraction, I mean that on one side, understanding is a thing-in-itself, on the other, about something that it itself is not. In this latter sense an abstraction. "Metaphysical phenomenon" I take to be incoherent word-salad - unless you can educate. — tim wood

Interesting, so it seems as thought you don't really understand how you come to perceive understanding itself. Or said in another way, how experiences effect your understanding. I'm left to the conclusion that you really don't understand how in cognition, and your own abilities to reason, can come about.

If that is somewhat accurate, then how can you speak to the creation of yours and my existence (much less the concept of a God's existence)?

Alternatively, you used the term 'thing-in-itself', is that Kantian metaphysics I wonder :snicker:

Do tell!