180 Proof
1.6k
(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.
— 180 Proof
:victory:

None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to".
— Frank Apisa
:smirk: :ok:

He didn't pick D, so I'm confused.
— 3017amen
Of course he did; of course you are. Take your meds, lil troll.

↪DingoJones :wink:

You are an amateur, 180.
— Frank Apisa
Yeah, I do love philosophizing. Thanks for acknowledging that. Hoped you'd learn from my example - 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that, huh? - but I guess not. Anyway, Happy 84 again, Frank! :party: — 180 Proof

Thank you for the additional birthday greeting, 180.

Here, however, you are flailing.

Your best move would be to do another of those "my work is done here"...and leave with a flounce.

You land more blows on yourself than on your opponents.

LOL, in the spirit of Muhammad Ali (God rest his soul ), with all his pent-up anger I think he rope-a-dope'd himself!!

On the contrary. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist. — 3017amen

This is more poetry. Here - I'll add a couple of more lines. I can't figure out what poetic metre this is in. The first two lines seem to have one strong beat and 3 weak beats. Do you know?

Consciousness itself is a mystery
and logically impossible to explain.
Thus doth God up in heaven,
makes that it must be.
And so the rain falls,
and sorrow is upon the earth.

It takes sort of a sad turn at the end. . . .

I'm kind of digging it actually! Maybe do more of a odd time signature like a 5-4 which would probably be more metaphorically appropriate.

Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth.

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

Still nothing? Here's the exercise again. And an earlier one:

Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love — jorndoe

Love what a great enigma! That's another part of conscious existence that seems logically impossible to explain doesn't it!

:rofl:

So still nutn' then, . Just raising a whole lot of ignorance, pretending it entails ... Jesus.

Accordingly I still like my metaphor that : God is a mottled color of Truth. — 3017amen

I have no problem with metaphors. All the religions in the world can duke it out with dueling metaphors.

But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation..

Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation

That's not fair, you haven't addressed 3017amen's central point, which is a legitimate concern.

Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically.

Aha...you have nothing to say...

...so you proudly show that nothingness to the world.

Too bad you have so little pride.

Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically. — Punshhh

The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"

EricH
210
↪Punshhh
Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically.
— Punshhh

The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps" — EricH

You are correct in many ways here, Eric.

BUT...the line of reasoning you are taking is called "The blind guesses of atheists."

This thing we humans call "the universe" may have been "created." And if an entity or entities "created" it...that entity or those entities deserves to be called gods.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."

The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist.

BUT (once again)...gods possibly exist...just as it is possible no gods exist.

But as you seem to be acknowledging, poetry is not logical. You cannot engage in a philosophical discussion such as this with poetry. Well, OK, you can engage - it's just going to be meaningless - as is pretty much everything you've said so far in this conversation.. — EricH

Not sure what you mean. Are metaphor's not meaningfull in the absence of logic? Or are metaphor's a substitution for a lack of explaining nature itself? Meaning, are metaphor's just as logically confusing as your consciousness itself? Does theoretical physics/science use metaphor's?

Hence: Jesus existed and was known to have a human consciousness. Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic?

You're a self-confessed "special snowflake", sir. (re: option (D)) There's "nothing" (as you say) of philosophical interest left to discuss with you now that you've been exposed decisively. Btw, Frank, try not to melt; there's a record-shattering heat wave going on at the moment.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa You're a self-confessed "special snowflake", sir. There's "nothing" (as you say) of philosophical interest left to discuss with you now that you've been exposed decisively. Btw, Frank, try not to melt; there's a record-shattering heat wave going on at the moment. — 180 Proof

Sorry you melt down so easily. I like a better challenge.

But continue your delusions. They are fun to watch.

:lol:

:sparkle:

180, once again, unknowingly acquiesced to admitting he hasn't figured it all out yet. And that's actually okay! How can you be a human and a snowflake all at the same time? Dr. Spock would say that's illogical! LOL

Hence, his liar's paradox, LOL

As I said, you have nothing to say...and you say that well.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

180, once again, unknowingly acquiesced to admitting he hasn't figured it all out yet. And that's actually okay! How can you be a human and a snowflake all at the same time? Dr. Spock would say that's illogical! LOL

Hence, his liar's paradox, LOL — 3017amen

If calling me a snowflake makes his feel better about being him...

...okay with me. It cannot be pleasant knowing he is himself.

Indeed. Christianity (the Wisdom Books) actually speaks to that sense of ignorance (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).

Nothing novel there!

We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.

Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"

So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.

If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.

However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.

You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist. — Frank Apisa

Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.

So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position.

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position. — EricH

Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!!

But consciousness is not necessary for existence.

This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness.

unless you are some sort of pantheist

This is a straw man, no one is suggesting that everything is conscious, or pantheism.

This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps"

Straw again, This only applies when someone attempts to justify a belief in the existence of God. I was simply pointing out that consciousness is good evidence of God, should we exist in a world created by God.

Can you show me how we can come to exist and be conscious in this world without its being created by a God?

Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist.

That's not a metaphor, it's an objective fact, or is it? Can you sort that out for me using logic? — 3017amen

This is a poetic word salad not an objective fact. The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both.

This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic.

"The moon was a ghostly galleon"
"Because consciousness itself is a mystery and logically impossible to explain, it is also logically necessary to exist."
"It was the best of times, it was the worst of times"

These are all poetic metaphors.

Why hide behind titles? Just use logic and the answer will come to you my friend!!! — 3017amen

I have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence.

This assertion fails, because we don't know what existence entails, so we can't discern any role in it played by consciousness. — Punshhh

So something that we don't know what it is - is necessary for something else that we don't know what it is?

Please check out my response to 3017amen just above.

EricH
211
↪Frank Apisa
We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.

Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"

So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.

If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.

However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.

You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist.
— Frank Apisa

Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.

So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position. — EricH

I didn't realize we had stopped having a discussion...and I certainly do not want to stop.

To make things easier, though, perhaps it is best to limit our discussion to a single element...and see if we can arrive at a satisfactory accord before moving on to others elements.

Allow me to choose the first one...which has to do with the word "supernatural."

Natural, to me, means anything that exists in nature...anything that exists, period. If a thing EXISTS...it is a part of nature.

I suppose (this is just a guess) that there are things that exist...but that humans are not aware of...either because of distance (the universe is a big place) or because of sensory limitations in humans (we may simply not be able to sense or perceive of certain things that exist).

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that?

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?
It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.
Can we agree on that? — Frank Apisa

Always a pleasure to find something agreeable. I'll sign on here to this. Lead on.

The phrases "impossible to exist" and "logically necessary to exist" contradict each other. One of the most fundamental principals of logic is that contradictory statements cannot both be true. It can be one or the other, but not logically both. — EricH

Correct. That's why driving while daydreaming is logically impossible. Hence you are driving and not driving at the same time. Or can you explain how the conscious mind works logically?

This sentence (as are all of your definitions and metaphors) is illogical. That does not mean it is valueless to you. To your way of thinking this contradiction implies a deeper "truth". But now you are using the word "truth" differently than it is used in logic. — EricH

Exactly. That my point. Your conscious existence is essentially logically impossible. Otherwise, explain how far objective truth can take you?

have. Religion is fundamentally illogical. You can use logic to analyze the religious texts of the various religions and point out all the impossible assertions & contradictions in the texts. But you cannot use logic to prove or disprove poetic metaphors. — EricH

Well that's not the point. But for the sake of argument, let's assume you are correct. Tell me then how do we analyze metaphors, through the intellect? And if so, does that consist of logic?

So whether we're arguing history from a textbook and trying to explain consciousness, mustn't you use logic?

And even if there are logical impossibilities, what difference does it make if you cannot even explain your own.... ?

Super-natural from a physics perspective relates to something beyond the natural laws of physics. Which could also include brute mystery at the end of the Universe.