The real problem is the weak-arsed nature of all the go[ds] who refuse to show up and communicate directly to people but leave proof of their existence to a priestly class and to fan fiction and to laborious arguments. — Tom Storm

:clap: :smirk:

Pandeism- nature is a large scale mechanism operational within specifiable, obdurate boundaries. Its productions & their consequences are verifiable by means of evidence examined through the lens of materialist-physicalist premises. Philosophy of nature is propounded by exercise of reason as expressed in logical arguments supported by pertinent evidence.

What is your response to the following characterization of Pandeism? — ucarr

It's perfunctory and insufficiently speculative (re: by contrast e.g. ↪180 Proof). — 180 Proof

I understand your use of perfunctory. You think my characterization is superficial. Regarding insufficiently speculative, I don't understand. Speculative - engaged in conjecture rather than knowledge. Given this definition of speculative, saying my characterization is insufficient, you're saying it needs to be more conjectural. Isn't this backwards? Did you mean to say, excessively speculative?

Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the the ontological status of flights of fancy? — ucarr

They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof

You haven't answered my question. I'm not asking about the content of flights of fancy. I'm asking about the phenomenon of humans engaging in flights of fancy. To a large extent, this is a question about the psychology of a certain type of behavior, namely, flights of fancy. The question is neither idle nor digressive because, in our context, we're examining human understanding of the general nature of existence & reality. Speaking epistemologically, human imagination & the Christian doctrine of faith are first cousins. I don't think science expels imagination from the scientific method. Do you think it does?

0. Deity (Boltzmann brain?) ...

1. Deity becomes – fluctuates until symmetry breaks – not-Deity aka "planck universe".

That symmetry breaks is axiomatic, without addressing question of cause & the problem of its temporality (cause, by definition, implies temporality)?

Planck universe = smallest possible quantum of material existence? Is this how the physicalist avoids the objective-idealist notion of a "point?"

2. "Non-planck universe" begins maximum degrees temperature and rapidly – explosively ("Big Bang") – expands as it cools off.

Advent of asymmetry + expansion, being embraced axiomatically, suggests imaginative speculation, not deduction from experimentally verified laws. This is a big deal since the transformation of the planck quantum as described leads to the general existence we call reality. Conclusion - Science can afford to expel neither time nor imagination.

3. Cosmic + thermodynamic entropy. (WE ARE nowHERE.)

Entropy is a primordial cause of the structure of general existence? How do you explain the increasing complexity of materialization we see all around us?

4. "Non-planck universe" ends eventually – dissipates completely – having become an absolute zero degrees vacuum.

So the physicalist looks forward not to transcendently real (self-other) LOVE, but, rather, black nullity?

5. Absolute zero degrees vacuum – total symmetry – is indistinguishable from Deity.

The abundant variety of creation arises from & returns to homogenous, black nullity?

0. "Omega point" > the universe (or multiverse) constitutes memories (or dreaming) of Deity (Boltzmann brain?)

This isn't how I interpret Susskind's Holographic Universe Theory. He wrenched a concession from Hawking regarding the preservation of 2nd Law of Thermodynamics through black hole gravitation. This victory puts the Big Bang Theory in doubt.

— 180 Pro0f's *pandeist fairytale* (in sum)
This is how I imagine, even contemplate (strange loop-like), Spinoza's 'natura naturans sub specie durationis'. :fire: — 180 Proof

In my opinion,

Metaphysical Solipsism : True by definition.
Methodological Solipsism : Unavoidable.
Psychological Solipsism : Dangerous and unhealthy, avoid at any cost.

Do the naysayers of the Jesus Godhead have any contemporaneous accounts denying the alleged miracles?

I guess those supporting the allegations have worked harder to promote the miracles than those denying them.

I work from the assumption some contemporaries of Jesus were deniers. Where is their 2000 year effort to sustain a narrative of no miracles?

You miss (or perhaps avoid) the point. It isn't just atheists who think the Jesus story is a myth. Many theists consider the tales to be bunk.

An appeal to tradition is a logical fallacy.

All religions have venerable stories of great deeds, gods and miracles - do you believe them all? Because if you accept the New Testament on the basis of an ongoing tradition then you need to accept Islam too or Buddhism or anything else featuring 'amazing stories', ancient doctrines and old books.

Your points here are good and I acknowledge their cogency.

I'm just saying that motivation counts for something. Of course all types of people from all manner of belief systems deny human Godhead, miracles & redemption.

The work of promoting same entails nothing supernatural.

Why hasn't this vast array of good news deniers done the work of creating & promoting a venerable book of denial, dating from the time of Jesus, or have they? Perhaps you think the history of science is a kind of bible of rational denial.

Why hasn't this vast array of good news deniers done the work of creating & promoting a venerable book of denial, dating from the time of Jesus, or have they? Perhaps you think the history of science is a kind of bible of rational denial. — ucarr

No, it's just that I don't accept your over-aching premise that there needs to be an equal and opposite tradition to any given religious stories. In most cases people are free to just ignore magic stories whatever their source. There is no need to erect an edifice of oppositional doctrines.

Why have multitudes embraced the Christian miracles, whereas myriad other miracle stories have been dismissed?

I'm not implying popularity equals verification; it doesn't. As you are well aware, multitudes believe in debunked falsehoods, as by your your estimation Christianity.

I'm thinking of the job of the philosopher. Isn't it to explain why one particular set of myths has staying power across two millennia? Maybe it's more the job of the psychologist, eh?

At any rate, something's going on with Christianity. Why are multitudes such fools for Christianity? Is the good book a supreme example of successful promotion?

Why haven't clever operators seized upon this example of selling myth with shelf life of more than 2000 years?

Don't say it! You think televangelists are doing just that.

Why do televangelists fall like bowling pins, whereas Jesus and other divines keep surviving? You can count their names on one hand.

You say Aristotle predates Jesus, and he's still going.

Well, scholars have worked across 24 centuries to promote Aristotle, and there's talk Jesus was one of his students.

Some of the Pharisees were contemporaneous naysayers of Jesus, and Judaism rejects his Godhead, but Jesus was a faithful Jew.

These antiquities are a philosophy perennial.

I gave an example of a far more sufficiently speculative "characterization" of pandeism than yours, ucarr. Compare them; my meaning implied by those differences seems clear to me. As for "the ontological status of flights of fancy", click the link provided "(Meinong)" to an article about "ontological status" and you won't find anything said or implied (by me) about "the content". I have answered both questions clearly, just maybe not with answers you'd expected (or they're over your head).

Why have multitudes embraced the Christian miracles, whereas myriad other miracle stories have been dismissed? — ucarr

We're going around in circles. Maybe you just have a need for the the Jesus story to be true and it suits you dismiss Islam and Hinduism and their miracle stories which are still very much from a living tradition. Miracle stories are so common it's scarcely worth noting them. What is rare however is actual miracles.

Why do televangelists fall like bowling pins, whereas Jesus and other divines keep surviving? You can count their names on one hand. — ucarr

People have a need for stories to help them cope with the struggles of life. You know that. There's a reason people take drugs and drink too. Even when the brands change. Televangelists seem to bounce back from scandal anyway because the followers don't really seem to care about ethics as much as they care about belief.

These antiquities are a philosophy perennial. — ucarr

Sure, but they had help. For centuries you were put to death for disbelief in Jesus or Allah. And powerful universities run by dominant groups determined and maintained the tradition of what counted as scholarship. It was never just about quality.

I'm thinking of the job of the philosopher. Isn't it to explain why one particular set of myths has staying power across two millennia? Maybe it's more the job of the psychologist, eh? — ucarr

The job of the philosopher is to help determine whether tradition is worth preserving and to test the truth or merit of ideas which are often popular despite the harm they cause.

.

Where to start?

If the Fundamental condition of any possible form of Reality is Matter, then it isn't exactly Atheism one believes in, is it? I believe that the Material Universe (as described by the Standard Model Of Cosmology see Cole and Ellis' Theoretical Cosmology) is all that exists, and that does in fact preclude some sort of magical Divine; but the absence of a god is not exactly the essential thrust of my conviction, just a corollary Truth.

So I guess I am an accidental Atheist.

And I am convinced, as per Darwin, that Consciousness infallibly denotes an objectively extant Material Universe, so I can hardly a Solipsist, can I?

An Objectivist Epistemology is a decent little work.

Atlas Shrugged, contrariwise, is out and out loony, the embittered daughter of Tsarist aristocrats' dark vision ennobling one strata of society so as to justify their unending greed and lusts for power, as if the capitalist class was in reality anything but a collection of ruthless thieves. No one needs any further reason than the work itself to completely denigrate Rand's Moral and Political philosophy, but if you want an easier and less time consuming clue, there's her willing and happy assistance to the House Un-American Activities Committee in the middle of the last century, which should earn her the contempt and contumely of every decent person.

And I am convinced, as per Darwin, that Consciousness infallibly denotes an objectively extant Material Universe, so I can hardly a Solipsist, can I? — Michael Sol

Are you claiming that consciousness is an emergent property of matter?

If your answer to the above question is "yes," then, regarding your identity as a self who is an attribute of the material ground, consider,

I believe that the Material Universe (as described by the Standard Model Of Cosmology see Cole and Ellis' Theoretical Cosmology) is all that exists — Michael Sol

If the Fundamental condition of any possible form of Reality is Matter.. — Michael Sol

So, you believe matter is all.

So, as an attribute of the one & only thing that is real, matter, and thus being nearly as one with same, how can you be anything other than a solipsist?

Assuming we posit that flights of fancy, via the human imagination, occur within nature as described above, what is the ontological status of flights of fancy? — ucarr

Note - This isn't a question concerning specific content of a particular flight of fancy. It is a question about the phenomenon of flight of fancy that departs from reason, eventually making claims that have no empirical verification. Since this phenomenon is an existing thing occurring in nature, examination of its ontology promises illumination of important attributes of reality. – ucarr

They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof

As for "the ontology status of flights of fancy", click on the link I'd provided "(Meinong)" to an article about "ontological status" and you won't find anything said or implied (by me) about "the content". I have answered both questions clearly, just maybe not with answers you'd expected (or over your head). – 180 Proof

You haven't answered my question. I'm not asking about the content of flights of fancy. I'm asking about the phenomenon of humans engaging in flights of fancy. To a large extent, this is a question about the psychology of a certain type of behavior, namely, flights of fancy. – ucarr

With the above, I’m trying to make a distinction between a mental construction e.g. “fancy,” and its materialistically real substrate “cognitive behavior (that generates the fancy).”

Let’s examine your quotation of the plural pronoun “They.” What is the antecedent of “They”? (Human) behavior isn’t a good candidate because its number is singular, not plural. Also, behavior isn’t an abstraction. It’s objectively real. Regarding “flights of fancy,” that has a plural number. Also, flights of fancy are mental constructions that can be construed as abstractions.

Your communication by citation appears to be a characterization of “flights of fancy,” not the behavior that supports it, a material reality.

As you say, to my question, as stated, it is a clear answer, to wit: They are abstractions merely subsisting (Meinong). — 180 Proof. Your citation is a meditation on the ontological status of the content of flights of fancy.

It is not an answer to my question as intended. I failed to state the question such that it makes a clear distinction between objects of fancy & the real behavior that causes them. I’m concerned with the latter, not the former.

The answer to my intended question, it turns out, is simple. The ontological status of the human cognitive behavior that gives rise to such things as square circles is that of a physical-material reality objectively verifiable.

Pro tip: "ontological status" =/= pragmatics (or cognition) aka "the behavior that supports it ..." :roll:

Uh, not to be disrespectful, but, really, what sort of similarity is "nearly as one with [the] same;" nearly never cuts it in Philosophy; which is to say, though made of Common Matter, I am yet a Single, Unique Consciousness,

From the OED, the first sentence of their entry for Solipsism:

"Philosophy. The theory or belief that one's own self or consciousness is all that exists..."

So, I repeat, having every reason to believe that all you Zombies are as real as I am or the Sun in the sky is, I can hardly be a Solipsist.

Philosophy sure does truck with reductive materialism.

But I am epiphenominal!

Scratch matter & you disappear right along with it.

I am a distinct self, nearly, but not entirely material.

Saved by an adverb!

Like it or not, you are wholly material until you show some axiomatic need or empirical proof that there is something that is not material, which you cannot do.

Epiphenomenalism, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You don't get Consciousnesses except through Evolution in a Material Environment. Evolution depends on 'mental events' like pain and pleasure, amongst other things. Since there is every reason to believe any Extant Reality must be Material, there is utterly no reason, since there is also no Empirical Evidence, to suspect anything Immaterial exists.

You need an alternative theory to our picture of matter constantly cycling and changing by means of causal processes before you can even begin to try to argue for the Immaterial - what would that look like?

Heaven, Hell, Immortal Souls? Sorry, just the Dreams of pre-Darwin and Einstein, primitive Philosophers.

Hello Michael,

Sidebar - Is it true that OED = Oxford English Dictionary? Just want to get that clarified.

Herein we're both working with some pretty tough concepts. I'd like us to agree about what you & I mean, respectively.

Epiphenomenalism, I'm sorry to say, is nonsense. You don't get Consciousnesses except through Evolution in a Material Environment. — Michael Sol

Wait a minute. In your second sentence above, you give a causal description of consciousness that aligns closely with what I understand to be epiphenomenalism.

Here's a quote from my Apple dictionary,

Epiphenomenalism is a position on the mind–body problem which holds that physical and biochemical events within the human body (sense organs, neural impulses, and muscle contractions, for example) are causal with respect to mental events (thought, consciousness, and cognition). According to this view, subjective mental events are completely dependent for their existence on corresponding physical and biochemical events within the human body yet themselves have no causal efficacy on physical events.

If you're refuting instead of confirming the above definition, then you're handing my solipsism claim to me on a silver platter.

Immaterial mind's lack of causal effect is what separates it out from matter. It's immaterial because it's non-causal.

If epiphenomenalism, as defined above, is nonsense, then there is no separation-distintion between brain & mind, and thus the mental self is one with matter, and thus your matter is all proposition is all inclusive, making the material self the only thing extant within our universe.

Like it or not, you are wholly material until you show some axiomatic need or empirical proof that there is something that is not material, which you cannot do. — Michael Sol

Here, again, you argue in favor of my solipsism proposition. If I am wholly material, then my mind is material, so the material mind is part of the only thing that exists, matter.

Note - The existence of other material minds, with whom you interact socially, has, per your view, no bearing on our cosmic solitude, as the categorical material self is the only extant self.

I differ from you in that I believe, by choice, that, in addition to the categorical immaterial self, there is also a transcendent immaterial cosmic self. The gist of my journey through existence is that it is an interpersonal dualism of self & cosmic other, whereas the gist of your journey through existence is that it is a solipsistic monism of categorical material self.

↪ucarr Pro tip: "ontological status" =/= pragmatics (or cognition) aka "the behavior that supports it ..." :roll: — 180 Proof

You're implying ontological status of a thing is metaphysical?

Yes.

Conclusion – Atheism is a theory of not-theism. If offers no categorical refutation of theism as a whole.

Theism is a theory of theism. It offers no categorical refutation of atheism as a whole. If you wanna believe in atheism, then that's up to you.

The concept as a Type of deity (e.g. theism) can be shown to be empty, establishing every Token of that deity Type (e.g. Allah, YHWH, Zeus) as imaginary ↪180 Proof. — 180 Proof

Gods are no concepts. They are real features of reality. Every attempt to show they are empty or imaginary is based on the assumption they don't exist in the first place, which makes the attempt false, viciously circular, or vacuous at least.

I heard someone say this:

"If the only thing keeping a person decent is the expectation of divine reward, then, brother, that person is a piece of shit." 

Indeed. Still, that person acts decent. And actually that person should be pitied. Acting decently out of fear is an undesirable state to be in. Acting decently because you love the universe they created is desirable. The same holds for a non-created universe, but such a universe can't exist.

Metaphysical Solipsism : True by definition.
Methodological Solipsism : Unavoidable.
Psychological Solipsism : Dangerous and unhealthy, avoid at any cost. — sime

Here's my adjustment.

Metaphysical Solipsism : 'true' only by contingent, encrusted, congealed habits in our blabbering

Methodological Solipsism : a game that was played until the pieces melted together and the board evaporated into a purple haze

Psychological Solipsism : (happy with what you said)

:eyes: :rofl:

Was William of Occam (novacula occami) a solipsist?

↪EugeneW :eyes: :rofl: — 180 Proof

Keeping on laughing about it doesn't make them go away Booze!