I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity. — 3017amen

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real)

That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy.

I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).

I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc.

I realize that what I'm about to say next will sound disparaging - maybe there's a way to say this in a less personally critical manner but that is beyond my skills - so I apologize in advance for making disparaging comments.

For some reason, your religion & faith are not enough for you - your are not content with living your life according to the tenets of your beliefs. You feel the need to give some sort of logical reasoning, some additional support structures, to buttress up your faith. Notice that these are all poetic notions here.

I took Philosophy 101 & 102 in college, so I am familiar with the broad outlines of the history of philosophical thought. Do I recall the details of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. No. And I don't need to, because Ignosticism has resolved all these issues - albeit it not in a way that you approve of.

I'll use a poetic metaphor here- Ignosticism unties the historical Gordian Knot of all discussions about "God"

All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry. You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning.

I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists".

You have erected internal mental walls that block you from being able to comprehend that "God exists" is an incoherent concept.

For the record I will repeat my response to 180 Proof above.

the standard definition of "God" (and I capitalized here) involves some notion of a supernatural spiritual realm. Supernatural means it is NOT part of nature - it does not physically exist. That is the key differentiator. And - as both Frank and I have pointed out - the word "existence" means existence in the natural physical world. — EricH

Now if you want to take Frank's definition of "god(s)" - the word "god(s)"is a placeholder for some hypothetical totally natural phenomena - then you are inside the boundaries of a philosophical discussion - you can have fun hypothesizing the "nature" of this hypothetical natural phenomena.

But once you invoke the supernatural? You are outside the metaphorical boundaries of logical discussion.

By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.

The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk:

But not all is lost. You may have the key to get out. Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?

Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.

If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it!

Are there any Christians on this thread?

↪180 Proof
You "deity types" categories split things up on what "God does or does not do". That does not clarify what the sentence "God exists" means. — EricH

As I point out in the second half of that post, "the crux of the matter" comes down to the grounds, or reasons, given to warrant any position taken on any "deity type"; whether or not a "deity type" is demonstrated to "exist" could be one of grounds, or reasons. Whatever "god exists means" is determined by how the phrased is used to talk about (a) "god", and in the abstract - without a specific discursive context or function - is literally meaningless (i.e. an ad hoc definition). My point is that when one says "I believe in a deist deity in so far as a deist 'deity exists' because XYZ", that's the point at which the phrase is (possibly) clarified. So "god exists" BECAUSE XYZ - my fourth question

(iv) Assuming you agree that beliefs,disbeliefs or doubts require sufficient grounds ... — 180 Proof

makes explicit that, at minimum, giving grounds, or reasons, is needed to make ontological commitments (re: "exists") meaningful.

• x is subjective = x's EXISTENCE is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions EXIST too))
• x is objective = x's EXISTENCE is mind-independent (e.g. real)

That's not every use of the words, but those are common in philosophy. — jorndoe

:up:

I took Philosophy 101 & 102 in college, so I am familiar with the broad outlines of the history of philosophical thought. — EricH

Uh oh ...

All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry.

I'd bet they didn't teach paraconsistent logic in "Phi 101-102".

You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning.

And your grounds, or reasons, for this assertion? Nothing mentioned in your post history (the last few pages of this discussion) warrants such a categorical statement - unless I've missed it.

I dont think the conclusion that it breaks the law of non contradiction follows at all. Me and 180 have been hinting at this for a while now.

Are you in favor of this particular vapid ex nihilo interpretation of the big bang theory? Given the only people I here espouse it are pop-science journals (to layman) and perhaps also creationists or rather poorly literate apologists.

Enlighten me? Either there is a singularity, or some other fudge (poetry). You still have the same problem.

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one?

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one? — Punshhh

See here, here, here, here, here in a parallel thread (you can likely find others).

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I am offering you and 3017 the opportunity to give coherent explanation of how you can meaningfully talk about or assign truth values to statements about words that do not point to anything real.

What are you talking about exactly?

Why am I being ignored here lol

Are there any Christians on this thread? — JerseyFlight

How exactly would anyone know (if they were)?

I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).

I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc. — EricH

Ironically enough, I find atheist's more angry. I'm happy, thanks!

I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists". — EricH

Is the concept of God, Subjectivity or Objectivity, or something else? If logic, as you say, cannot explain God, what transcends logic?

In summary, you haven't explained your conscious existence and how you came to be... , now, you are saying that logic cannot answer the deepest questions of existence.

By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.

The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk: — EricH

Your own consciousness (conscious and subconscious working together) breaks the law of non-contradiction. Jesus had a consciousness. I see no difference there.

Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?

Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.

If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it! — EricH

I'm not sure I would be world famous, but those who've had a religious experience might. Accordingly, you may want to study William James, AH Maslow and other's from cognitive science (ineffable experiences) etc... .

I was not ignoring you. To answer your comment - you and 180 & 3017 are asserting both P and ¬P.

What are you talking about exactly? — 180 Proof

I'm gonna start by going meta-conversation for a few minutes.

- - - - - - - - - - -
[Meta-conversation]
Even tho we are all using (or attempting to use) the English language to communicate here - in fact your world view and mine are so far apart that we can be using the same words yet we can be meaning entirely different things.

I am attempting to bridge the difference. This is an extraordinarily difficult task. To illustrate just how difficult this is, I'll give you an example.

From your perspective, the positions of @Frank Apisa & myself are likely so similar that for all intents and purposes they are identical - or at least they are kissing cousins. Yet, if you look back through this discussion you'll see that Frank Apisa & I had a very long side discussion about what Frank meant when he was using the word "god(s)". It took us a long time to get on the same page (more or less) and even now we disagree on some nuances.

So if two people who are philosophically close to one another can have difficulty communicating, I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to understand what I am saying - since it would require you to restructure your thinking.

The fact that after I have been repeating the same thing over & over - and yet you ask me what I am talking about? That illustrates as well as anything just how difficult this task is that I have assigned myself.

Unlike many others on this forum, I do not think you are a stupid person. It is clear that you are reasonably well read and articulate.
[/Meta-conversation]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So with all that, I will attempt to take a different approach for a while. Let's talk about these words "true/truth" & "false/falsehood".

<Side-discussion>
When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. If you are a witness in a court of law and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that the words coming out of your mouth will - as accurastely as you are capable of - describe facts/events in the real/physical world that we live in.

A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not. This is basically the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

In order for a sentence to have truth value it must describe a potential fact.

The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located at the time the statement is made

But - and here's a key thought I'm trying to communicate - It is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.

Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The moon was a ghostly galleon
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.
Etc

We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are either poetic in nature and/or nonsense sentences.

So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? To my knowledge there are two schools of thought on this topic.

One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"

The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.

I go with that second school of thinking. You cannot assign a truth value to nonsense (or poetic or religious) sentences.
</Side-discussion>

- - - - - - - - - - -

And now we loop back to the same thing I have been repeating over and over.

Words have meanings/usages.

Under your usage/definition of the word "God" and under the standard usage/definition of the word "exists"? The sentence "God exists" is a nonsense (or poetic) sentence.

Can you come up with a formulation under which this sentence can take a truth value - so we can communicate? I think that is an impossible task.

But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc.

Perhaps you can come up with a different usage/definition of the words "true" & "false" and "exists" under which two people of different religions can hold a religious conversation and agree on what they are talking about. Just as in science there is the scientific method to further our knowledge - maybe there is a "religious method" under which people of different faiths could find a common language/method to further religious beliefs.

That would be an historic achievement. Go for it!

Well in my previous posts I had argued why I don't accept your usage of natural and supernatural and because of that I cannot agree with you that 1: Talk of "supernatural" things are poetical in nature rather than philosophical. 2: The premise that 'God exists' violates the law of non-contradiction.

But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc. — EricH

180 is not a theist. They are, like me, arguing that your claim: supernatural things are beyond philosophy and more like poetry is asserted without any support.
Amen and Punshhh are the closest to theists you can get. I haven't got an opinion on the matter yet because I am incredibly poorly read and a big noob.

I can only speak for myself, Eric, but I do not know how “existence” came to be…or if it always has been.

This thing we humans call “the universe” may not be all that exits…in fact, it may not even be MOST of what exists.

The question, “Are there any gods involved in existence?” (which often is stated, “Do any gods exist?”…is not a “nonsense” question, as your comments indicate you deem it to be. (This is one of the areas where we diverge.)

The question, “What is ALL THIS about?” essentially is the ultimate question of philosophy. (Perhaps the only question…or the question at the base of all other questions.)

To suppose one theoretical possibility (at least one god exists or no gods exist) is not a possibility (is impossible) makes no sense.

If I were to accept your opinion that “God exists” is a nonsense poetic comment…I would have to accept that my take on the question, “I do not know if any gods exist” is also a nonsense poetic comment.

It isn’t…not by a long shot.

The problem here may not be one of words or meanings…but rather of the general reluctance of humans to acknowledge they do not know what they do not know.

Interesting conversation going on. I’m enjoying reading it.

This thing we humans call “the universe” may not be all that exits…in fact, it may not even be MOST of what exists. — Frank Apisa

Yep, Multiverse... .

Which would be supernatural and more akin to poetry if we were to accept what Eric says. :s

Which would be supernatural and more akin to poetry if we were to accept what Eric says. :s — DoppyTheElv

From an epistemic point of view, you would have to ask yourself why or how should one even posit such a possible world, and why are possible worlds so axiomatic in determining the truth values about whether something is logically possible (or not) and/or logically necessary? Those kinds of questions go back to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge, and how it's possible :gasp:

And that leads to other metaphysical questions and concerns, like what are the laws of physics themselves...

Super natural: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. (Or maybe start with the mystery of consciousness, that should be easy :snicker: .)

With "god did it" and "supernatural magic" anything goes. :sparkle:
Could literally be raised to explain anything, and therefore explains nothing.
Might as well be replaced with "don’t know", which incurs no information loss.
Is not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, and has consistently been falsified in the past.
Literally a non-explanation.
That's ↑ not a dis/proof, but just explicates the vacuity of such utterings.

I'm familiar with the arguments against assertions of god did it.

But you haven't answered my question, is there anything in philosophy which justifies the opinion that there is no supernatural element in our origins?

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real) — jorndoe

Nice!

That raises more questions than it answers. Here are a few to ponder:

1. Are feelings subjective or objective?
2. Are the laws of nature independent or 'dependent' on something?
3. Is Subjective Idealism a metaphysical theory about some thing objective?
4. Is mathematics objective or subjective?
5. Is love subjective or objective?
6. Is the ontological argument objective or subjective?
7. Is the ineffable religious experience subjective or objective?

Bonus question: should we be thinking binary or dialectic?

Questions, questions, questions!

How exactly would anyone know (if they were)? — tim wood

Question can easily be rephrased, is there anyone on here who considers themselves a Christian, believes exclusively in the Christian God?

Question can easily be rephrased, is there anyone on here who considers themselves a Christian, believes exclusively in the Christian God? — JerseyFlight

How about a christian who does not so believe? My point being that whatever a christian is, is not so easy to define.

How about a christian who does not so believe? My point being that whatever a christian is, is not so easy to define. — tim wood

Well then, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that you belong to the tradition, which is certainly a futile exchange you will not be having with me.

Well then, the burden of proof would be on you to demonstrate that you belong to the tradition, which is certainly a futile exchange you will not be having with me. — JerseyFlight

Most Americans, imo, are default Judeo-Christians. It's the air they breathed and the water they drank growing up and even now. And many of the fundamentalist belief systems, even Catholic beliefs, are simply untenable for educated adults. Does that mean they are not Christians?

I hold there is an ethical core to Christianity, perhaps oft neglected (for sure oft neglected), that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or being, though often predigested as such as meal for the fond, for those who can stomach it. That core always in effect, always at work, and for those willing, always accessible. Those oriented to that core are what I call Christians, and so-called Christians other-oriented I call not-christian, insofar as they're misguided.

Remember, here in America, pragmatic principles that say relate to Ethics (how to live happily), as found in the OT/Wisdom Books, is Christian Philosophy.

I hold there is an ethical core to Christianity, perhaps oft neglected (for sure oft neglected), that has nothing to do with any supernatural entity or being — tim wood

Is this core complete or is there room for growth?

Words have meanings/usages — EricH

No, the usages of words, not words alone, have meaning or not. Read e.g. Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, both by Ludwig Wittgenstein. Meanwhile, Eric, I'd still like you to answer

"All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry."

"You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning."
— EricH

And your grounds, or reasons, for these CATEGORICAL assertions? — 180 Proof

Another meta-babble stream of non sequiturs will indicate to me that you neither know what you're talking about nor understand my concerns.

Is this core complete or is there room for growth? — JerseyFlight

Of the person or the core? Growth for the individual and the community, refinement and adjustment for the core. Imo being a Christian is to be about a doing, a movement towards - keeping in mind Milton's "they also serve who stand and wait." The "wait" not to be confused with hanging around idling, but rather wait as in serving. I would much like to find a church that understands Christian service, but most are about "saving" people and the person of God, and praising(!) that person. The which I consider an absurdity in practice.

I often say that if "being a Christian" means "a person who thinks the teachings attributed to Jesus are worth taking to heart"...

...then I am a Christian.

I know lots of "non-Christians" who feel that way...and who wish the people who call themselves "Christians" would feel that way about the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Just sayin'.

Of the person or the core? — tim wood

The ethical core. Anyhow, instead of doing this dialectically I will just get to the point. Once we establish that this core is not complete but can be developed, then the question arises as to whether or not God is necessary to its development? The point is that if one "sees an ethical core" in Christianity one has not seen it because of Christianity. One does not need to reference God in order to develop it. This makes the reference of God both useless and unnecessary.