180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa wtf :lol: — 180 Proof
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
p2. I have reason to suspect a god necessarily transcends existence. — 180 Proof
I see no reason whatsoever — Frank Apisa
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.Naïve, uncritical, gullible, malleable, credulous, "seeing faces in the clouds", ..., philosophically or otherwise?
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.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.
Each to his own. I don't see any inconsistency between divinity and the discoveries of science, such divisions are historical baggage.Some of the claimants (including @3017amen if memory serves) have difficulties with biological evolution. :confused:
No, it's a reality that we originated and that the nature of that origin is approached philosophically, hence metaphysics.about universal, or remote origins
— Punshhh
Are we talking grandeurs by which the universe pales?
This is inevitable, I'm afraid, it's rather like a Laurel and Hardy sketch.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.
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.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.
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.Sometimes by design, immunized from counter/evidence. What's left? Epic experiences, personal revelations, ...?
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."And where's Jesus?" :)
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
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa ↪3017amen
Idiocy does love company! — 180 Proof
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
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
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. — tim wood
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.
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?
Explain how you know this - inexplicable occulting - to be the case, that it's our human cognitive predicament.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
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.Explain how you know this - inexplicable occulting - to be the case, that it's our human cognitive predicament.
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
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
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
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 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.
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
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
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
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
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.