180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa wtf :lol: — 180 Proof

Yup.

You are apparently clueless.

You shouldn't be. You are smart enough to see what is happening here.

Put down the shovel. You are deep enough.

Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist. — 180 Proof

Mmmmm, let's see...your syllogism must be incoherent then, because it uses the term transcendence? Would like to revise and resubmit yours?

Otherwise, once again, I'm afraid you've left yourself in the untenable position to define transcendence hence:

p2. I have reason to suspect a god necessarily transcends existence. — 180 Proof

How do you know God transcends existence? Is your premise true or false?

Jorndoe!

Are you able to answer any of my questions yet?

You're right, Frank. We need to pay more attention:

I see no reason whatsoever — Frank Apisa

Idiocy does love company!

:grimace: Yikes, what a clown-show...

Idiocy does love company! — 180 Proof

Hahaha.... let's see Frank, I believe we have another classic example of a disgruntled atheist who is hiding behind ad hominem.

In his syllogism, he can't even make his own premise(s) sound! It's as if he's trolling or something, not sure.

Naïve, uncritical, gullible, malleable, credulous, "seeing faces in the clouds", ..., philosophically or otherwise?

Yes, both sides can engage in this. When I first came to philosophy forums I was surprised to see philosophers discussing theology. Then I realised the history of religion in our societies resulted in that. Perhaps now philosophers are distancing themselves from it.

Not sure I understood your comment right, entirely possible I misread, in which case discard: Per earlier, in what way does an adult's non-naïveté (or epistemic attitude) demand that they take into account, incorporate thoughts of, intangible hobs that can control the weather in their lives? (Should their spouse family friends be concerned?) If absent in any way that matters, then in/consistency between epistemic attitude and real life comes-to-the-fore.

My comment was simply that the reasons given by atheists to support any conclusions that there isn't a g/God are naive in philosophical terms. Because a cursory examination would conclude that humans are ill-equipped to answer the question, either way, so theists are similarly naive to attempt to conclude the opposite using philosophy.

Anyway going back to your thoughts on hobs, it's more evidence of human frailty, I'm afraid. However the "non-naive" are not impelled to take hobs seriously. Because there is a legitimate philosophical issue concerning our origin, of whether it was by design, by a mind perhaps, or not. This is because of the primacy of our known experience being via the mind. Therefore our mental existence is philosophically primary to what is perceived, or experienced by us during our existence (but I expect you know this). So the enquirer can seriously consider this designer in the absence of, by implication, any hobs.

Some of the claimants (including @3017amen if memory serves) have difficulties with biological evolution. :confused:

Each to his own. I don't see any inconsistency between divinity and the discoveries of science, such divisions are historical baggage.

about universal, or remote origins
— Punshhh

Are we talking grandeurs by which the universe pales?

No, it's a reality that we originated and that the nature of that origin is approached philosophically, hence metaphysics.

The claimants will typically also have it that their super-beings can hide entirely from us, but we cannot hide from them, which seems mostly like post-rationalization.

This is inevitable, I'm afraid, it's rather like a Laurel and Hardy sketch.

A kind of rationalization going on here converges on a particular category of propositions, p, so that both p and ¬p are compatible with attainable evidence. Sometimes by design (intent-to-rescue), sometimes not.

Apologies if I am not following the standard form of these debates, I approach from left field. But logic is no use either, without any genuine indication, or evidence of our origins we are blind to the reality, so anything we conclude intellectually is again mute on the issue.

Sometimes by design, immunized from counter/evidence. What's left? Epic experiences, personal revelations, ...?

Well these do figure in the lives of theists and they may entail other means of knowledge than the intellect. But as I said earlier it is impossible to prove even to oneself, if God is standing before you that g/Gods exist. Again due to human frailty. In reality there is a real process by which we originated and we are blind to it. That's as far as the intellect goes. To go further you have to use other means.

"And where's Jesus?" :)

Jesus is professed to be a prophet, so has had his blinkers lifted apparently, amongst other things. Prophets do appear to attain some wisdom, even esoteric knowledge about reality, but it is not easily amenable to intellectual, or philosophical consideration. This I consider is due to the knowledge attained being of a different kind to that provided by the intellect.

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa You're right, Frank. We need to pay more attention:
I see no reason whatsoever
— Frank Apisa — tim wood

I SEE NO REASON WHATSOEVER TO SUSPECT THAT GODS CANNOT EXIST...THAT THE EXISTENCE OF GODS IS IMPOSSIBLE.

NONE WHATSOEVER.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa ↪3017amen

Idiocy does love company! — 180 Proof

Thank you for sharing that.

You should know...so I will pay attention to what you are informing me.

None so blind.... In sum you've told us what you can "see." An in result we've learned what you cannot or will not see. Nothing left here.

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa None so blind.... In sum you've told us what you can "see." An in result we've learned what you cannot or will not see. Nothing left here. — tim wood

You are indeed blind if YOU cannot SEE what nonsense you are peddling here.

MY ORIGINAL STATEMENT...the one you took issue with was identical to the one you are now mocking.

You have to do that, because you were not able to show my statement to be irrational or illogical.

You are correct, though, there is nothing left here. Just an angry atheists cutting away with his tail between his legs.

If you decide to grow a bit of spine and some ethics...come back. I will be here. We CAN have a productive discussion on this issue.

:up: :100:

where's Jesus?" :)
Jesus is professed to be a prophet, so has had his blinkers lifted apparently, amongst other things. Prophets do appear to attain some wisdom, even esoteric knowledge about reality, but it is not easily amenable to intellectual, or philosophical consideration. This I consider is due to the knowledge attained being of a different kind to that provided by the intellect. — Punshhh

Here's more fun with another basic syllogism/form of modal logic ( All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B.)

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .

Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?

No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?

Gentle reader, 3017amen doesn't know what he's talking about. Word to the wise

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God. — 3017amen

Several problems. Start with the fallacy of four terms, just for a start. Sorry, not a valid syllogism. Also, #1 is altogether problematic. In one variation it simply assumes the conclusion. If there's a variation that doesn't, I don't see it.

Several problems. Start with the fallacy of four terms, just for a start. Sorry, not a valid syllogism. Also, #1 is altogether problematic. In one variation it simply assumes the conclusion. If there's a variation that doesn't, I don't see it. — tim wood

You mean Jesus/God didn't exist, are you sure?

Okay, maybe parse each proposition/premise:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

Let us know!

LOL

Oh, and while your brainstorming, parse my questions if you can:

As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

For example, for humans to say or think to themselves that 'all events must have a cause' is actually quite extra-ordinary. That's not only because of the practical application or uses of causation itself (the metaphysical sense of wonderment innate to consciousness) being that it works so well in the discoveries from physics, logic and other forms of intellect that we value. But also, that same sense of wonderment confers little if any biological survival advantages over that of lower life forms. And the same with mathematical abilities and musical genius... .

Maybe one fundamental question there is, what is wisdom (intellect) , and why does wisdom matter to humans, when emergent instinct otherwise ensures survival(?). Should the basic existential needs be all that is necessary for survival (eating, drinking, sleeping, procreating)? And what is logically necessary to confer quality of life advantages between humans (each other), as well as, over lower life forms? What is quality of life and why is it important?

No pun intended, but I wonder if atheism squares that circle of self-awareness?

LOL

As it relates to a "different kind [of knowledge] to that provided by the intellect", it almost begs another question relative to Kant's metaphysics. How is synthetic a priori knowledge possible?

Quite, there is an assumption by humanity that the normal, or default state of living human experience is a stable emergent property of the interaction of physical material. That there need not be any more to it than that. I see this as a psychological comfort zone. It being advantageous for us (at this stage of our development) to dwell in a feeling of static peace, in which only that which we perceive and interact with in our environment is real and anything else entailed, which we don't perceive is absent, a myth.

This being the case, any novel, unexpected aspects of this reality tend to be dismissed as some sort of figment of an overactive imagination, or peculiarity of thought processes. In this way materialism dismisses speculation of such condierations out of hand, while ignoring any attempts to reconcile the big existential questions with our experience of living and handing them over to science which will eventually explain everything for us. Indeed some materialists insist that pretty much all fundamental questions have now been answered and that humanity is the pinnacle of evolution.

While to folk who stare the big questions in the face daily are dismayed at the complacency. For example, what on earth is it that enables such a complex entity as a human to persist in such a diverse environment as the world we find ourselves in, with time and extension, presence and being? We are all familiar with the account provided by the sciences. But that account is merely a description of what is found by the set of faculties we find we have in these bodies we find ourselves in at birth. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, not any kind of explanation, with the 90% of the reality of our existence hidden beneath the surface, like the iceberg. Simply because we are not equipped to perceive it.

And the materialist just says, nothing to see here, move along now, nothing to see here.

We are all familiar with the account provided by the sciences. But that account is merely a description of what is found by the set of faculties we find we have in these bodies we find ourselves in at birth. It is merely the tip of the iceberg, not any kind of explanation, with the 90% of the reality of our existence hidden beneath the surface, like the iceberg. Simply because we are not equipped to perceive it. — Punshhh

Explain how you know this - inexplicable occulting - to be the case, that it's our human cognitive predicament.

Explain how you know this - inexplicable occulting - to be the case, that it's our human cognitive predicament.

I don't know that with any degree of certainty. It just seems obvious to me, in the light of how much about our origins we don't know.

Also regarding our predicament, if you take the full breadth of human knowledge, it is entirely derived from aspects of our lived experience. An experience dictated by the nature of the bodies and biosphere we find ourselves in, are born into. Even our intellectual knowledge is born of a mind developed to pick berries and hunt with speares. A world in which things like space, time, physical material, gravity, solid, liquid, gas, fire, are all taken for granted as aspects of reality. To the extent perhaps, that their origins are not even considered, or how it all came to be the way it is. But rather, it is regarded as normality, even reality is self.

But actually what we take for reality in this way, is only a description of what we find, not an explanation. Although science has successfully explained how many of these aspects of our world relate to each other and interact, including the origins of things within the sphere of the materials we find in front of us out of others. However any explanation of the broader origins of this reality are entirely absent. This is understandable, because it is beyond our capabilities. But this realisation is not justification to deny any explanation there might be out there, however odd it might seem to be to us. In reality, we are in the dark when it comes to a knowledge of our origins.

In this way materialism dismisses speculation of such condierations out of hand, while ignoring any attempts to reconcile the big existential questions with our experience of living and handing them over to science which will eventually explain everything for us. — Punshhh

Well of course the one major hurdle for the materialist is how consciousness emerges from a piece of wood.

The dynamic associated with existential angst relates to psychology and cognitive science, in that we are hard-wired to live a consistent life of striving, of wondering, of Being and doing. One can say it's the antithesis of instinct in lower life forms. In philosophy, it's known as the will. Or in the case of Schopenhauer, the metaphysical will in nature. Our will is metaphysical in nature. Otherwise, how do we explain the nature of our Will?

And that is a segue to Kant's intuit about synthetic a priori knowledge and why we have it, as an innate feature of consciousness (apart from pure logic). For example, we naturally think that all events are causational. We default to that sense of truth. That sense of wonder. But once again, what is the nature of wonderment? In consciousness, it's not material nor does it confer any biological advantages. Instinct is all that's needed to take it's place. Instead, wonderment involves, and confers, quality of life for human existence. It's an ancillary feature of consciousness, yet is vital for our quality of life. It involves discoveries in science and all the humanities. Without it... ?

And that leads also, to the Will to survive; live or die. What determines our Will to either check-out or stay alive? Quality of life?

Atheism cannot square any of those metaphysical and/or existential circles, nor can it explain the phenomena associated with consciousness (the will, wonderment, love, self-awareness, etc.) in a material way. I feel bad for atheists, they don't seem to be that intuitive, to say the least... .

For example, what on earth is it that enables such a complex entity as a human to persist in such a diverse environment as the world we find ourselves in, with time and extension, presence and being ? — Punshhh

The Will.

On a broader scale, think about seeds growing, electromagnetic waves (electrical phenomena), procreation, the weather, the nature of time, or anything that naturally occurs from our existence. Cosmologically speaking as it were, this metaphysical will in nature is quite extra-ordinary, no? Or in the alternative, is it ordinary, yet unexplainable? (Or is it explainable and normal?)

How does atheism address the metaphysical will (I wonder :snicker: ) ?

Basically to me, God was like Santa Claus. Believed as a little kid, then realized he was just a fictional character, but didn’t feel like I was lied to or something, just that I had grown up and learned the difference between fact and fiction. — Pfhorrest

A key problem on philosophy forums is that religion is a kind of art, whereas philosophers tend to want to treat it as a form of science.

As example, an entirely fictional play upon the stage can share deep truths about the human condition. An atheist philosopher may be inclined to jump in the middle of the play and yell, "Hey! These people are just actors, and the story is totally made up!" In other words, it's bad science. Which is true, plays are bad science. And so the philosopher may walk away convinced they've made a devastating rebuttal, when really they've just missed the point.

On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another.

If people treated religion as just illustrative fictional stories and not as though it was conveying objective facts, I wouldn’t object to that at all.

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference in the world, rather than as an ideal to aspire to or a comforting thing to imagine or a metaphor or something, then they’ve lost track of the difference between fact and fiction.

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference in the world, rather than as an ideal to aspire to or a comforting thing to imagine or a metaphor or something, then they’ve lost track of the difference between fact and fiction.

One should make the distinction between people who claim that this God does exist and those who are merely considering the possibility. Someone can speculate that God is a real being, who does things in the world, because we are not in a position to claim that it is not a possibility.

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference i — Pfhorrest

In Christianity:

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God.
2. History indicated Jesus existed.
3. Therefore, history indicates the existence of God.

1. Jesus was known as being [ in part] God. — 3017amen

Invalid because your first premise is false.

An atheist philosopher may be inclined to jump in the middle of the play and yell, "Hey! These people are just actors, and the story is totally made up! — Hippyhead

Sure. But a decent play ought at the least be self-consistent. Christianity isn't.

If people treated religion as just illustrative fictional stories and not as though it was conveying objective facts, I wouldn’t object to that at all. — Pfhorrest

Well, it's surely true that many people take the stories literally, as a form of science. Why bother objecting? And, if we're going to object, we might be intellectually honest and recognize that some of the stories seem remarkably close to what science is telling us. "And then God said, let there be light." Kinda sounds more than a bit like the Big Bang, eh?

Perhaps the best example is the Book of Genesis and the story of Adam and Eve. Was there a guy, a gal, and a talking snake? Probably not. That part is probably just a fable which tries to explain something profound to uneducated peasants of 3,000 years ago, much as we might try to explain sex to a five year old.

But is our relationship with knowledge a central fact of our personal human experience? Is that relationship causing us to race towards ejection from the garden of eden of the biosphere in our own time? Does the Adam and Eve story reference something which could be profoundly true? Maybe it does.

My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless.

But when people talk like God is a real being who actually does stuff that makes a difference in the world, rather than as an ideal to aspire to or a comforting thing to imagine or a metaphor or something, then they’ve lost track of the difference between fact and fiction. — Pfhorrest

Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to convert you to anything, and if you prefer to believe you know what is fact and fiction on issues the scale addressed by god concepts, ok, go for it. Personally, I don't see that as being much different from the religious claims, but that's just somebody's opinion.

My guess is that there were some quite wise people in ancient times, and they tried to share what they saw in the cultural medium of their time. That cultural medium is now very out of date, but that doesn't automatically equal their insights being useless. — Hippyhead

That's what I'm saying is fine with me. Taken as allegories, metaphors, teaching stories, I have no problem with these kinds of myths. There's a whole modern "religion" of "Jedi" who aspire to embody the values depicted by the fictional heroes of the Star Wars movies, but don't think that those movies actually depict a true history of something that happened a long time ago in a galaxy far far away. That kind of thing is fine with me. Tell a story about a really nice guy named Jesus and say we should all be like that? That's great! No problem! But say that there really is what is in effect a superpowerful benevolent alien being who created the planet and all life on it and actively intervenes to guide history toward some planned outcome where the people he approves of will live happily ever after? That... is going to take some major evidence, and lacking that I'm going to doubt the sanity of the people who honestly believe it.

Ok, please understand that I'm not trying to convert you to anything, and if you prefer to believe you know what is fact and fiction on issues the scale addressed by god concepts, ok, go for it. Personally, I don't see that as being much different from the religious claims, but that's just somebody's opinion. — Hippyhead

I don't think you're trying to convert me, but I don't get why you think the scale of the claims somehow makes them more plausible? If you told me your sister ate Cheerios for breakfast yesterday, I'd probably just take your word on that, because that's a small detail that's totally within the realm of what I already know to be quite plausible. But if you told me some tall tale about beings with fantastic powers doing things I've never credibly heard of anybody or anything doing, especially if those tales run counter to things I otherwise have good reasons to believe, then I'm going to want to know why you believe that, and "I read about it in an old story" won't be a very convincing reason.