In the area of that I spent over ten years studying/debating philosophy and know about it as much as anyone can the answer is "yes". However like Socrates who was the "wisest" man in Athens because he at least knew that he knew nothing at all, I know that there are both plenty of unknown knowns as well as unknown unknowns, as well as human fallibility/human condition that I can't do that much about. — dclements

There are many people out there that surround themselves with morons who don't know the difference between their left and right hands so that if they lie and pretend to intelligence, the applaud of these people where your every word goes straight over the heads is nevertheless enough to satiate your ego and make you feel highly intelligent. You have those who are cruel or vicious and yet falsely pretend to kindness as they manipulate with precision specific actions that they can publicly demonstrate in order to show themselves as unique and kind. People play games with themselves and one another, with false prophets and prophetess' everywhere - that when they are confronted with the reality that they are not so smart and not so kind after all, when their ego is hurt because their game is exposed and their sense of delusional grandeur is shattered, they can get rather angry.

You speak as though you are humble and yet refer to yourself as the unknown known comparatively a reference to someone supposedly "wise" whereby you apparently spent ten years studying this very subject that you know more about than most people. I'm not swinging my fist at you, I am just showing you that you are not as wise as you think you are and from what you wrote, I highly doubt that the last ten years were well spent.

There are many people out there that surround themselves with morons who don't know the difference between their left and right hands so that if they lie and pretend to intelligence, the applaud of these people where your every word goes straight over the heads is nevertheless enough to satiate your ego and make you feel highly intelligent. You have those who are cruel or vicious and yet falsely pretend to kindness as they manipulate with precision specific actions that they can publicly demonstrate in order to show themselves as unique and kind. People play games with themselves and one another, with false prophets and prophetess' everywhere - that when they are confronted with the reality that they are not so smart and not so kind after all, when their ego is hurt because their game is exposed and their sense of delusional grandeur is shattered, they can get rather angry. — TimeLine

I'm kind of glad that none of what your saying really applies to me since their is nobody either on the forums or elsewhere who puts any effort into satiating my ego or make me feel better than any other pleb. In fact there are aspects of my life where I'm not treated any better than any other transient so the fact that I can even talk as if I'm as respectable and honorable as any other non-transient is a good thing since the alternative is worse. Personally I think of myself more like someone like Diogenes then someone like Socrates or Plato, since I'm not really sure they existed in the way they are supposed said to exist (ie. they may have wore rags and been a bit disheveled at times), but with Diogenes it isn't that hard to believe that he lived the life they claimed to live (either out of a barrel or out on the street) and it isn't that hard of a model for someone studying philosophy to model themselves after if they wish to.

You speak as though you are humble and yet refer to yourself as the unknown known comparatively a reference to someone supposedly "wise" whereby you apparently spent ten years studying this very subject that you know more about than most people. I'm not swinging my fist at you, I am just showing you that you are not as wise as you think you are and from what you wrote, I highly doubt that the last ten years were well spent. — TimeLine

You misread what I said, I said that I know there are known unknowns as well as unknown unknowns; this type of nomenclature was use by Rumsfeld during the Second Gulf War:

There are known knowns
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_are_known_knowns

As to whether I have spent part of the last ten years of my life well, that to me sounds like something that would require for you to know more about me to make a proper assessment. Then again as someone partial to nihilism, I realize that there is a good chance that over half the people alive may not serve any purpose whatsoever (whether by choice or by other reasons), so the idea that perhaps part of the last ten years of my life studying philosophy wasn't that productive would be something to be expected and the norm then something I have done really bad on my part.

Oi, since when is Anselm a god? I said that surely Anslem' ontological argument on the existence of God has a logic, namely "...that than which no greater can be conceived," and not that God is logical. But wait, you say:

The only necessity is contingency...show me otherwise
— Cavacava

Hmm.. and you also say:

All the logical conundrums fall flat in the face of experience, and life goes on.
— Cavacava

Anselm' formula that we are unable to conceive by understanding alone of a perfect being or God which - by being an agnostic - you must agree with this contingent proposition since the nature of the divine beyond which nothing greater can be posited is neither true nor false.

My my, how logical of you.

Think of the cosmological singularity - how did the universe come to existence? No one is able to posit the very nature and the ultimate beginning of this reality and yet we assume the necessity of the singularity' existence since the universe exists. Unless, you believe that the universe is a contingent proposition?

A perfect being should possess existence, but it cannot maintained that solely by virtue of this conception existence is entailed.

"Kant-- following --Hume disqualifies the ontological proof on the grounds that there is no contradiction in conceiving of a determinate entity as existing or nonexistent" Quentin Meillassousx

Kant's refutation of the ontological argument means that for any and every determinate being there can not be any absolute necessity. Dogmatism is dead and along with it metaphysics, oi vey.

This proof is intrinsically tied to the principle of sufficient reason since this thought entails that all things have causes, even the totality of causes which is god, it demonstrates that there is no absolute necessity.

So, ah-yuh even the universe is contingent, it could have been otherwise.

Hi, happy we agree here.

MU, I think that man has set reason as its 'god', the perfection we glimpse in its purity, and I it think this is an intrinsic part of modern man's psychological construction.

If something can possess existence, then does that mean there can be something that possesses non-existence?
What was the something then? Something that be, would have to exist (implicitly), which is contrary to non-existence.
Predicate ontologization is bad language, existence is not a properly proper property, whereas, conversely, predicates/properties do exist, for what they are.

Formally, the proper expression is

• ∃x∈S [ φx ] (Y)

where φ is a predicate, x is a variable, and S is a set.
If the ∃ and φ symbols were interchangeable, then you might end up with strange expressions like

• ¬∃x∈S [ ∃x ], ∃x∈S [ ¬∃x ], ∃x∈S [ ∃x ], ¬∃x∈S [ ¬∃x ] (N)

I guess I side with Kant on that one, in part at least.

A perfect being should possess existence, but it cannot maintained that solely by virtue of this conception existence is entailed. — Cavacava

To say that a perfect being should possess existence would presuppose conditions corresponding to a set of properties, but existence is not a first-order property.

"Kant-- following --Hume disqualifies the ontological proof on the grounds that there is no contradiction in conceiving of a determinate entity as existing or nonexistent" Quentin Meillassousx.

Kant's refutation of the ontological argument means that for any and every determinate being there can not be any absolute necessity. Dogmatism is dead and along with it metaphysics, oi vey.

This proof is intrinsically tied to the principle of sufficient reason since this thought entails that all things have causes, even the totality of causes which is god, it demonstrates that there is no absolute necessity. — Cavacava

Well, yes, Kant cannot agree in non-existent objects, since if he stated that 'existence is not a real predicate' he would contradict his own argument by accepting the non-existent. To put it simply, it is impossible to prove the existence of God as much as it is impossible to deny.

But, didn't Kant agree that God is not contingent but exists necessarily? How is dogmatism dead if Kant justifies believing in God, considering that noumena is beyond our understanding that we simply use reason to regulate such a suggestion? I am an imperfect, finite being that there must necessarily be a perfect, infinite being. It is a synthetic a priori truth within the limitations of noumena and while we are responsible for shaping experience through this intrinsic principle of sufficient reason through free-will, there is still an external part of this that remains independent from us and it is not simply reason attempting to order the phenomenal.

I don't think Kant links this to a succession of causal rules that we are able to identify but rather that we are able to reason that an event has a cause even if we don't know what. Free-will is noumena that contains its own causal process of our independent choosing, so I still fail to see the demonstration of no absolute necessity.

So, ah-yuh even the universe is contingent, it could have been otherwise. — Cavacava

Nope. You're gonna have to do better than that. :P

I'm kind of glad that none of what your saying really applies to me since their is nobody either on the forums or elsewhere who puts any effort into satiating my ego or make me feel better than any other pleb. — dclements

I think you missed the point; the only person who can satiate your ego is you, considering you choose who you interact with. For instance, the concept of the "crazy cat lady" is a reference to people who substitute human relationships with animals since a cat is not going to respond to your flaws and in your own neurotic way believe that it actually cares for you. If you like the company of people who compliment you especially when you don't deserve it, of those people who never show you your flaws or open you to your mistakes, of those who don't challenge you emotionally and intellectually, and if you associate with people that you can - and willingly - lie to or manipulate (because you have zero respect for them), you do not mirror yourself with another person as part of a genuine human relationship, but you mirror yourself to your own ego and as such you will never improve. A signal of this narcissism is almost always anger or some other self-defence mechanism to the very person who points out your flaws.

And perhaps try modelling yourself to absolutely nothing, meaning, by visualising no one either physically or intellectually to enable the real you to manifest, rather than searching for versions of possible "you" through others and simply mimicking them.

Necessity is the tool of reason. You say that what is necessary could be a fantasy, a fiction. This renders reason impotent. Now you say that mankind has set reason as its god, but you've already left this god impotent. It appears like either you misunderstand mankind, or mankind misunderstands reason.

I said

I am sure that a 'logical' God it is a fantasy, perhaps a necessary one

you said

How is it possible that something which is necessary could be a fantasy

and I answered

I it think this is an intrinsic part of modern man's psychological construction.

Now you want to step outside the frame, as it were, and suggest that I am rendering reason qua reason "impotent",' but what I am suggesting is that reason has taken on a 'divine' like character for modern man...in this capacity it is far from impotent it rules as a 'God'.

Thanks, great questions, but I am facing a mountain of unpacking :-* , so later slater.

Hi, happy we agree here. — Cavacava

I was so tired last night, I miss read your post and thought you were trying to call me 'happy', and didn't know what to make of it until I got a little more rest. I guess it is a good thing that try to pause and/or reread certain posts in order not to sound too much of an idiot. X-)

I think you missed the point; the only person who can satiate your ego is you, considering you choose who you interact with. For instance, the concept of the "crazy cat lady" is a reference to people who substitute human relationships with animals since a cat is not going to respond to your flaws and in your own neurotic way believe that it actually cares for you. If you like the company of people who compliment you especially when you don't deserve it, of those people who never show you your flaws or open you to your mistakes, of those who don't challenge you emotionally and intellectually, and if you associate with people that you can - and willingly - lie to or manipulate (because you have zero respect for them), you do not mirror yourself with another person as part of a genuine human relationship, but you mirror yourself to your own ego and as such you will never improve. A signal of this narcissism is almost always anger or some other self-defence mechanism to the very person who points out your flaws. — TimeLine

I definitely understand your reference to crazy cat lady since one of my sisters is in her 60's and has four cats of her own. To be honest, I'm not really the all knowing a-hole that I sometimes pretend to be online and I think I'll tried explaining this in the last couple posts, although perhaps not too effectively.

If your really worried about it, I can tell you that I've had more than my share of people to put me in my place and obviously my ability to sometimes act like a jerk (at least in real life), is merely a preemptive attempt to put myself at a higher position (or equal position depending on one's point of reference) in order to to keep OTHER low-life scum bags from being able to take from me whatever they want.

But on the forums it is different since there is NOTHING someone can take from me other than perhaps my online reputation, which isn't worth a rat's backside. However, I sometimes act like a jerk (although not too much of a jerk or a newbie that would get me banned) just so that someone like yourself may have the desire to to want to knock me off my soapbox. You see if someone intelligent such as yourself (and I can tell your at least sort of gifted/intelligent because your post are probably more..articulated than that of the average person on the street if they tried to post) actually wishes to put be down, they can POTENTIALLY find flaws in my beliefs. When I first started studying philosophy for the first few years I went through several paradigm shifts because I realize certain things I believe were..not the best way to perceive the world around me, and because of that I decided to change my views to conform to a new view instead of vice versa.

However this has gotten a lot more difficult to do the longer I have been doing it. Most of the stuff I either already know or merely have to re-remember it instead doing any real kind of paradigm shift that I use to have to do. I don't know if any of this makes sense, but in a nutshell one of the reasons I still study philosophy (when instead I could just move on) is either to see if there are any more paradigm shifts I need to go through and/or as a form of sanity check.

Because of this I am more than HAPPY if you can tell me what it is that I believe that is WRONG so I can fix it, but right now I don't know if there is anything I believe that is wrong or if you just think I think of myself as some kind of special snowflake or something; and even if I did think of myself as a special snowflake, over 50% of the people in the US believe the same thing so I'm unsure how it would be really that much worse for me to be doing it if everyone else is doing it as well; and/or as I have explained I do it because I have to, not because I want to.

And perhaps try modelling yourself to absolutely nothing, meaning, by visualising no one either physically or intellectually to enable the real you to manifest, rather than searching for versions of possible "you" through others and simply mimicking them. — TimeLine

After reading this a couple times I'm not sure what you are saying or even if it applies to me. As far as I can tell I have lived my life the way I think I should live and only occasionally rely on the way other people do things in order to determine how I should live my life. If either everyone around you is a failure and/or does things in way way that you can't do them you are force to be creative and often a contrarian in how you go about life, if for nothing else nobody has the time to show you how it is SUPPOSED to be done.

Easy does it, before we start chewing the fat off the bone where I am compelled to read and write essays, let's just get straight to the point shall we?

I am more than HAPPY if you can tell me what it is that I believe that is WRONG so I can fix it, but right now I don't know if there is anything I believe that is wrong or if you just think I think of myself as some kind of special snowflake or something — dclements

When I already quoted one of many problems in your argument:

I kind of both agnostic and atheist. — dclements

But you already knew this, you just assumed and what exemplifies your rational failure was that I was insulting you rather than showing you a very clear flaw in your argument.

Thanks, great questions, but I am facing a mountain of unpacking :-* , so later slater. — Cavacava

The beauty of being on a forum (Y)

But you already knew this, you just assumed and what exemplifies your rational failure was that I was insulting you rather than showing you a very clear flaw in your argument. — TimeLine

I realize that I didn't explain that part of my post well enough, but nether did I consider it really all that important considering such things as that we (as well as anyone reading this) will most likely be dead in the next 50 to a 100 years and that very small nuances like that will never be read after that as well as forgotten by that time.

At any rate I will explain, I'm agnostic in the fact that I CAN NOT prove there is a God NOR can I prove there ISN'T a God. Also because of knowing the difficulties of proving such things I'm POSITIVE (or at least positive enough until someone that can explain it better) that NOBODY can do this either. In this regard I'm AGNOSTIC.

HOWEVER, because theism is aggressive/evangelical (and also because of certain bad personal experiences in the past) , I can not be merely idle when dealing with a religion or any other system of beliefs that potentially threatens the way I choose to live my life. That combined with the idea that they are wrong about a great number of things (such as they can know something about God's will without any possibility of knowing anything about him/her/it), makes me a bit of an ATHEIST.

Now while it is plausible for you to try to argue why a person can not be both an agnostic or an atheist (which personally I use both titles merely to deal with certain theists, who try to pigeon hole me as either and then undermine my position if I accept to ONLY be one of the two and could otherwise could care much less about it), I'm unsure as to the reason as to why it would be of much importance nor do I see any possible fruition if from some reason this becomes a debate between theism and atheism, which is the only other way I can imagine this issue going at the moment.

However since I can only speculate as to what point you are going to make, I will just leave it at that and let you explain your part.

K,

The following from here:

Despite his insistence that the idea of God is indispensable and “inescapable” (cf. A584/B612), Kant again denies that we can acquire any theoretical knowledge of the alleged “object” thought through such an idea. On the one hand, then, the idea of God is “the crown of our endeavors.” On the other, as in the cases of both rational psychology and cosmology, the idea answers to no[t] given and theoretically knowable object (A339/B397). Indeed, according to Kant, the idea of God should not lead us to “presuppose the existence of a being that corresponds to this ideal, but only the idea of such a being, and this only for the purpose of deriving from an unconditioned totality of complete determination the condition…” (A578/B606). As in the other disciplines of metaphysics, Kant suggests that we are motivated (perhaps even constrained) to represent the idea as a real object, to hypostatize it, in accordance the demand for the unconditioned:

The 'necessity' in Kant's refutation of the necessity of an absolute being (i.e., the ontological argument) is real ontological necessity and its refutation dashes the absolute necessity which forms the ultimate culmination of metaphysics.

This proof is tied to the principle of sufficient reason, the concept that every worldly fact has a reason, an explanation, a cause, a reason why things are the way they are in fact, and reasons for those reasons, which leads to infinite regress. Every metaphysics is accented by at least one absolutely necessary real entity, which is the 'dogmatic metaphysics'. But if any such real necessary being is rejected then the principle of sufficient reason is also rejected.

The only necessity is contingency.

So, ah-yuh even the universe is contingent, it could have been otherwise.
— Cavacava
Nope. You're gonna have to do better than that. :P

Well what would happen to the constitution of the universe if one digit in Planck's Constant were different?
:-O

This proof is tied to the principle of sufficient reason, the concept that every worldly fact has a reason, an explanation, a cause, a reason why things are the way they are in fact, and reasons for those reasons, which leads to infinite regress. Every metaphysics is accented by at least one absolutely necessary real entity, which is the 'dogmatic metaphysics'. But if any such real necessary being is rejected then the principle of sufficient reason is also rejected. — Cavacava

Where I am confused is the lack of Kant' transcendental method particularly the presupposition of concepts like causality that, yes, would lead to an infinite regress since it has no synthetic function and where our 'logic' discussion was referring to because we formulate or posit potential illusions to causal sequences, but his criticism is towards a priori knowledge, no? Kant' ontology through existence is not a predicate about being itself attempts to explain contingent experience, hence:

"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."

This is to say that ultimate reality, ultimate 'being' or God is necessary, and this is followed by the moral argument.

The only necessity is contingency. — Cavacava

Still ain't convinced!

Well what would happen to the constitution of the universe if one digit in Planck's Constant were different? — Cavacava

Is this a trick question? >:)

Sure. We were being invited to entertain the contradictory of the obvious; so to point out the obvious was the best reply.

You wrote:"Surely there is a logic behind St. Anselm' “that than which no greater can be conceived.”"

I pointed out that this is (obviously) false, because capacity to conceive and existence are logically independent.

...the point of Anslem' ontology is that which is ultimately a perfect being cannot be thought that it cannot even be thought of as not existing.

If we cannot conceive of something then we cannot speak about it meaningfully. Conversely, if we can speak meaningfully about something then we can have a concept of if.

If the outcome of all this is that God must exist but that we can neither speak nor think meaningfully about God, then nothing will have been proved. God drops out of the equation. He might as well be a square circle.

But of course we can speak meaningfully about God and we can think about God. And these things are quite independent of God's existence. Obviously - or perhaps not.

If you can give me a reply to my last post and/or as to why it is wrong for me to consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time.

Where I am confused is the lack of Kant' transcendental method particularly the presupposition of concepts like causality that, yes, would lead to an infinite regress since it has no synthetic function and where our 'logic' discussion was referring to because we formulate or posit potential illusions to causal sequences, but his criticism is towards a priori knowledge, no? Kant' ontology through existence is not a predicate about being itself attempts to explain contingent experience, hence:

"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."

This is to say that ultimate reality, ultimate 'being' or God is necessary, and this is followed by the moral argument. — TimeLine

Would the answer that such questions are basically non-trivial problems (ie. basically unanswerable beyond merely speculating what may or may not be) be sufficient enough for your curiosity? Sure you can ask questions to such things but without the resources to answer them IMHO it is..more pragmatic to focus on things that can be dealt with than with such things that can not be.

I imagine that perhaps if there is a God (as well as such answers are pertinent to understanding him/her/it) , he/she/it might be angry as to not understanding his/her/their will but at the same time if God only provides me only with people to claim to know his/her/it's will instead of the real thing I (as well as others that believe as I do) have to uses whatever tools make my way through life. Whether it be hedonism, Machiavellianism,game theory, etc.etc

Just as theism some times tell us certain things are forbidden for us to worry about, so doesn't reason sometimes show us there are certain ..non-trivial issues that we are not able to resolve without some kind of additional resources at our disposal.

"Accordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing."

This a quote from "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God". published in 1763, which SEP considers Kant's pre-critical period, it does not appear to have made the cut 18 years latter in his 1st Critique.

There is no absolute, no reason why things are the way they are, no full explanation, things are just the way they are, everything could be otherwise. The explanation that things the way they are due to an ineffable real being is superstition. This is not to say there is no God, only that describing God as a real being is "magical thinking" , but there is reason to think that "magical thinking" might be essential in man, Kant intimates as much.

The only necessity is contingency. >:O

There is no absolute, no reason why things are the way they are, no full explanation, things are just the way they are, everything could be otherwise. The explanation that things the way they are due to an ineffable real being is superstition. This is not to say there is no God, only that describing God as a real being is "magical thinking" , but there is reason to think that "magical thinking" might be essential in man, Kant intimates as much.

The only necessity is contingency. >:O — Cavacava

After studying philosophy and science for a little while, I've found it harder to believe their is the possibility of real 'magic' (things spontaneously, because someone wills it or something like that) even though the possibility of things that seem like miracles (ie. scientific explainable process that appear almost like magic yet are not) are still plausible as well as processes that appear like they are 'willed' into existence without but are still the later.

I know these nuances seem kind of trivial, however for me it always seems like there is little guy behind a curtain somewhere pushing button/pulling levers and no matter what the miracles or magic show is merely a show and not that much more. Why one might be in 'awe' of such things, I think one needs to be in just as much awe of our day to day 'miracles' instead of focusing on the 'magical' or spiritual ones that may not be what they think it to be.

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it this way, since it does take at least some talent to create a magic show or any good show for that matter, but much 'magical thinking' isn't pragmatic with dealing with many problems if what we are looking at is really just a mundane process like any other mundane process.

The magic-- at least for me, is that there is no ultimate explanation. Seeking explanations for why things are as they are and exactly how they are as they are, is in my opinion what pushed humanity forward to where it is at today. Thinking about the unimaginable scale of the universe is a wonder in itself.

I believe that people have religious experiences, that logic and reason are regulatory of thought, but do not constitute thought. Logic,reason & language cannot fully describe our experiences in life, love or death, any such attempts always leaves something out-- the magic.

This a quote from "The Only Possible Argument in Support of a Demonstration of the Existence of God". published in 1763, which SEP considers Kant's pre-critical period, it does not appear to have made the cut 18 years latter in his 1st Critique. — Cavacava

And? Kant did write it, right? And what makes you think this pre-critical phase wasn't the very impetus to his first critique, and if not, did he ever admit that his former publications were flawed and openly abandon it? And did not his sufficient reason argument that you willingly discuss stem from the same period?

There is no absolute, no reason why things are the way they are, no full explanation, things are just the way they are, everything could be otherwise. The explanation that things the way they are due to an ineffable real being is superstition. This is not to say there is no God, only that describing God as a real being is "magical thinking" , but there is reason to think that "magical thinking" might be essential in man, Kant intimates as much. — Cavacava

He certainly intimates these 'illusions' of reason - the whole man on a cloud, the trinity, the sun or whatever the heck - but the fact that you say (t)his is not to say there is no God is the very root of our argument, whereby since Kant cannot deny non-existence otherwise his existence is not a predicate would contradict itself that therefore concludes the necessity of God since by saying (a)ccordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing justifies my initial suggestion contingency isn't the only necessity. If your argument rests solely on some justification that Kant suggested that during his pre-critical period, ya gonna have to do better.

The only necessity is contingency. >:O — Cavacava

Mutterwit... >:o

I realize that I didn't explain that part of my post well enough, but nether did I consider it really all that important considering such things as that we (as well as anyone reading this) will most likely be dead in the next 50 to a 100 years and that very small nuances like that will never be read after that as well as forgotten by that time. — dclements

Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds? So, the futility of existence is a justification that intelligence and reasonably, well-thought out and commonsensical behaviour is pointless.

And yet you say:

If you can give me a reply to my last post and/or as to why it is wrong for me to consider myself both an atheist and an agnostic at the same time. — dclements

What for? You will be forgotten in fifty years anyway, so lets just shut off into hedonism and die fat, old and stupid surrounded by idiots.

Sure you can ask questions to such things but without the resources to answer them IMHO it is..more pragmatic to focus on things that can be dealt with than with such things that can not be. — dclements

We are talking about Kant. And where do you think pragmatism inherited the tradition from?

Maybe this is the wrong way to look at it this way, since it does take at least some talent to create a magic show or any good show for that matter, but much 'magical thinking' isn't pragmatic with dealing with many problems if what we are looking at is really just a mundane process like any other mundane process. — dclements

You talk a lot but you never really say anything.

Do you realise just how ridiculous that sounds? So, the futility of existence is a justification that intelligence and reasonably, well-thought out and commonsensical behaviour is pointless. — TimeLine

I can imagine it may not make any sense to you if you can not understand the context/narrative it is used in but part of the reason I said it was to see if you could UNDERSTAND the other contexts that exist other than your ow,n which apparently you can not.

Just because a person is a prisoner doesn't mean it is a given for them to dream of escape or a for them to come with reasons to do what they do even if there is little purpose for them doing other than for them to retain some resemblance of sanity.

For the evidence available to us, is highly plausible and even probable that many of actions serve no long term purpose other than allowing us to get from one day to the next and some peoples lives many not have any purpose at all. While it isn't a given that all of our lives serve no purpose whatsoever, neither is it a given that it isn't true.

What for? You will be forgotten in fifty years anyway, so lets just shut off into hedonism and die fat, old and stupid surrounded by idiots. — TimeLine

I just wanted to give you a second chance since I just thought you had some kind of counter argument you wanted to assert other than I was wrong merely because you disagreed with what I've siad. However since you are unwilling or unable to say what it is I realize it can't be that good otherwise you would mention it.

Whether you like it ot not, you, I, and everyone else reading (as well as those who do not) WILL EVENTUALLY DIE either alone or if they are lucky surrounded by people who can do nothing about it (whether you want to call them idiots or not that is your choice) but life will go on and eventually we will be forgotten..one way or another. Even if you have a tombstone or can afford a monument in your name the name on it will fade and the rock it was made from will crumb as well in the near future. The only reasons such things are built is to give someone that remembers you something to visit while they are alive. After that such things become pretty moot.

So if one wants to clutch a bottle or a bible (or perhaps both and/or something else) , it might not be as big a deal as you think. Nobody gives a rat's backside as to whether someone that has passed did or did not do something (other than perhaps it making a difference on whether they may be able to indulge in their own vices and/or quality of life) and in the big picture of the human condition things probablely turned out how they did, because that is how they were going to turn out anyway. If you don't like the fact that I put it this way to you (instead of sugar coating it the way perhaps other people have), then that is just too bad for you.

The magic-- at least for me, is that there is no ultimate explanation. Seeking explanations for why things are as they are and exactly how they are as they are, is in my opinion what pushed humanity forward to where it is at today. Thinking about the unimaginable scale of the universe is a wonder in itself.

I believe that people have religious experiences, that logic and reason are regulatory of thought, but do not constitute thought. Logic,reason & language cannot fully describe our experiences in life, love or death, any such attempts always leaves something out-- the magic. — Cavacava

I like some mystery as much as the next person, but sometimes it help to know how something works if you need to do something about it.

The good thing is as long as we are human beings (or something close to it) there will always be some mystery in the world around us, so the idea of having SOMETHING MYSTERIOUS about the world around us is a non-issue as far as I can tell. :D

He certainly intimates these 'illusions' of reason - the whole man on a cloud, the trinity, the sun or whatever the heck - but the fact that you say (t)his is not to say there is no God is the very root of our argument, whereby since Kant cannot deny non-existence otherwise his existence is not a predicate would contradict itself that therefore concludes the necessity of God since by saying (a)ccordingly, there must be something whose nonexistence would cancel all internal possibility whatsoever. This is a necessary thing justifies my initial suggestion contingency isn't the only necessity. If your argument rests solely on some justification that Kant suggested that during his pre-critical period, ya gonna have to do better.

He can deny the real being of absolutes, which he does in his critique, and I think he also denied existence is a predicate in his earlier works. The point is not that absolutes can't be, even perhaps they must be, but they cannot be known, they can only be believed in and this is how Kant makes room for faith.

This means that rationality has no legitimate claim over beliefs, and it can not judge one belief superior to another. Therefore:

"--thought no longer provides an a prior demonstration of truth of a specific content of piety; instead, it establishes how any piety whatsoever enjoys an equal and exclusive right to grasp the ultimate truth."
Q Meillassoux "After Finitude"

The point is not that absolutes can't be, even perhaps they must be, but they cannot be known, they can only be believed in and this is how Kant makes room for faith. — Cavacava

I agree here, but this is when the discussion of the transcendental dialectic begins, whereby is it not a compelling premise that it is a necessary condition that our existence can be reasonably concluded as having formed by a causal sequence returning back to the unknown yet substantive formation of the universe? We can conclude that God being a man on a cloud or the trinity etc are the illusions of reason as we are able to trace the source as rational, autonomous beings following a synthesis between us and consciousness of the world, and the possibility of transcendental reflection for ourselves is practically indispensable epistemologically, but I am not convinced that we simply stop at the point of being aware of our limitations but rather continue - morally - toward the ideal, making God necessary for perfecting our moral position.

What do you think of this? http://staffweb.hkbu.edu.hk/ppp/ksp1/KSP5.html