Update

To put this thread back on track.

Define

1. Existence: That which can be perceived (with our senses & instruments( exists.
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments.

I will gladly "rethink my position on" theism when (1) theism is soundly demonstrated to be true AND (2) when more-than-intersubjective, intelligible grounds for needing "an explanatory hypothesis of the universe" (somehow) become evident. :halo:

You're a prophet, Gnomon! :roll: — Agent Smith

Every snakeoil salesman and New Age pimp just loves an easy touch like you, Smith. Working both sides of the agora like this must be thirsty work even on rainy days. "Siainte!" :smirk:

I haven't yet taken the time to settle on a particular worldview 180 Proof. Folks like us, with below-average IQ and EQ, need to work extra hard to get to the truths of life and reality. We're the stragglers, go, leave us, we'll only slow you down! Evolutionary dead ends our lot. Hail Nietzsche!

Back to the main page now! As far as I'm concerned God is still in the game but only as a hypothesis for why the universe exists (creator deity). @Gnomon , you must've noticed, doesn't restrict his idea of a G*D to religions. His thesis, EnFormAction, is what I prognosticate is religions' future in the coming few centuries to millennia. At the very least, it's an update on the metaphors we find in faiths, something religions sorely need to , well, keep up with the times. That should count as something in my humble opinion.

There's more but I have a feeling you'll take it as hogwash!

theism is soundly demonstrated to be true AND — 180 Proof

Unless you give a physical explanation of the genesis story of the quantum vacuum, gods exist. Untill now the best that can be done is push the genesis back in time.

Define

1. Existence: ...
2. Physical: ... — Agent Smith

1. A minimally-dependent field, or domain, which is relational and evident.
2. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities).

I have a feeling you'll take it as hogwash! — Agent Smith

:smirk:

False dichotomy. Category errors. Hasty generalizations. Cornucopia of nonsense, ... but you already 'know" this so I won't bother spoon-feeding the breakdown.

1. A minimally-dependent field, or domain, which is relational and evident.
2. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof

Are there Wikipedia articles where I can get more details on what you're saying?

Probably hundreds of them ... I wouldn't know.

False dichotomy. Category errors. Hasty generalizations. Cornucopia of nonsense, ... but you already 'know" this so I won't bother spoon-feeding the breakdown. — 180 Proof

Call it whatever you like, my dear. You ain't got a story about the origin.

You ain't got a story about the origin. — Hillary

:up:

Probably hundreds of them ... I wouldn't know. — 180 Proof

Oh! So, I'm on my own! Good to know.

Cornucopia of nonsense — 180 Proof

This gets better every second!

. Aspects of existence (i.e. entities) consisting of structures sufficiently complex for computing defeasible models of said aspects of existence (i.e. entities). — 180 Proof

That's a non-sequitur fallacy based on a wrong premise with it's roots in being a faithful disciple, (a prodigy even, maybe!) in the modern-day church of computer science. Firstly, there is no computing going on, insofar complex systems are involved, and secondly, there is no need whatsoever for models to be defeasible.

So, being a disciple (maybe even a prodigy variant!), gives little credibility to your woowoo musings, supposedly being a definition of the physical... A caleidoscopic, panoptically pandemonic fantasmagoriac apotheosis. No more, no less.

Whatever, lil troll. :sweat:

Better to be a little troll than a giant Panner!

Whatever whatever means, it's clear that your use here serves one goal only!

:rofl:

your EnformActionism is, to my reckoning, what religion will look like in the distant future (say a 100 to a 1000 years from now). It blends old ideas with new ones, in the most elegant of ways I might add. Moreover, it's got a little bit of everything in it (eclectic/mashup/remix)! — Agent Smith

I doubt that anything like the reason & science-based Enformationism worldview will ever become a popular religion. For one thing, it's too broad & general. Yet, it works as an intellectual-philosophical attitude toward the ("stranger in a strange land") world we find ourselves trapped in (Heidegger :"thrownness"). But, a popular religion requires an emotional commitment, based on faith & hope for something better than the current imperfect world of pain & suffering. Some New Agers seem to feel a connection to something "bigger than us", as in Paganism & Panpsychism & Tat Tvam Asi ("thou art that"). And some may mistake Enformationism as a love-is-all-you-need New Age religious philosophy. But for me, it's merely a way to make sense of the mysteries (Why) that remain after materialistic Science has done all it can to reveal How the world works. :nerd:

PS___The G*D that I envision is not omnibenevolent to human creatures, but simply an impartial Observer watching the Game of Life unfold, as the players struggle to survive and to score points for their team. I haven't been able to work-out any scheme of Salvation or Deliverance, except in the hypothetical possibility of Re-Enforming (reincarnation), which recycles the Data of which I am made. But the Un-Known On-Looker hasn't revealed His/Her plans for me after the game is over. Nevertheless, we can always hope for the best. And try to win for The Team (humanity ; ecology, etc), not for the Spectator, who roots for both sides (Good & Evil).

PPS___My philosophical god-model is a form of Deism, specifically PanEnDeism. Some have tried & failed to make a viable religion of such an abstract & dispassionate concept.


Thrownness :
Geworfenheit—a kind of alienation that human beings struggle against, and that leaves a paradoxical opening for freedom.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrownness
"Into this world we're thrown /
Like a dog without a bone"
Riders on the Storm The Doors

Deism :
belief in the existence of a supreme being, specifically of a creator who does not intervene in the universe. The term is used chiefly of an intellectual movement of the 17th and 18th centuries that accepted the existence of a creator on the basis of reason but rejected belief in a supernatural deity who interacts with humankind.
___Google

Better to be a little troll than a giant Panner! — Hillary

Ha! 180 proof calling you a "troll" is like invader Vlad Putin calling defender Volo Zelensky a NAZI. :joke:

Panner - Urban Dictionary
Someone who is relatively big or fat but thinks and acts like he or she is buff or of average weight constantly talking about it.
https://www.urbandictionary.com ›

I still feel your EnFormAction thesis is what religions will eventually morph into! As for being low on feelings, it makes up for that with (scientific) awe & wonder, a highly recommended swap as per Richard Dawkins, no less!

Ah, you characterize 'questions you can't answer', like this one , "trolling"? Card sharks, pool hustlers, FBI profilers and dialecticians call this "a tell", playa. :sweat:

2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments. — Agent Smith

That which exists when mind is removed.

That which exists when mind is removed. — RogueAI

Good one! That captures the essence of the physical in my opinion. However, it puts us in a bind to my reckoning for how are we to determine if anything is physical without the mind getting involved?

It's not actually impossible, re Lao Tzu (Wu wei). We would need to observe withouth observing! :chin:

Ils sont fous ces Romains Chinois. — Obelix

Good one! That captures the essence of the physical in my opinion. However, it puts us in a bind to my reckoning for how are we to determine if anything is physical without the mind getting involved? — Agent Smith

Thank you. I would start with what we know to be true (at least one mind exists), and then see if any further assumptions about reality are warranted. Does positing the existence of mind-independent stuff solve anything? Is physicalism possible to prove? Does it lead to absurdities or contradictions?

Thank you. I would start with what we know to be true (at least one mind exists), and then see if any further assumptions about reality are warranted. Does positing the existence of mind-independent stuff solve anything? Is physicalism possible to prove? Does it lead to absurdities or contradictions? — RogueAI

Si, señor! I applaud the almost divine simplicty of your approach/method! Of course Descartes beat you to it but we can set that minor point aside for the moment!

So, what do we know?

Most interesting. :chin: — Ms. Marple.

Update
To put this thread back on track.
Define
1. Existence: That which can be perceived (with our senses & instruments( exists.
2. Physical: That which is matter and/or energy. Both are perceived (accurately) with instruments. — Agent Smith

Where does "God" fit in this? Shouldn't "back on track" refer to the subject, which is "God & Existence"?

Anyway, what conclusion can be drawn after having defined "existence" and "physical"?

Where does "God" fit in this? Shouldn't "back on track" refer to the subject, which is "God & Existence"?

Anyway, what conclusion can be drawn after having defined "existence" and "physical"? — Alkis Piskas

Well, God's the spanner in the works being a nonphysical entity that exists. I thought it better to leave him for last; for starters we could sort out what existence and physical mean.

In my own view

1. Physical: Perceivable through the senses/their extensions (instruments).

2. Existence: Perceivable, again, through the senses/their extensions (instruments) + Inferrable from data e.g. the design argument.

Update

The sticking point: How to distinguish nonexistence from nonphysical?

The sticking point: How to distinguish nonexistence from nonphysical? — Agent Smith

Insofar as "nonphysical" entails disembodied, it's indistinguishable from "nonexistent". Perhaps X is "nonphysical", such as an idea –it is subsistent instead (Meinong et al).

Insofar as "nonphysical" entails disembodied, it's indistinguishable from "nonexistent". Perhaps X is "nonphysical", such as an idea –it is subsistent instead (Meinong et al). — 180 Proof

True that! :clap:

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence.

God is an idea! :chin:

Meinong! Clever chap!

What I'd like to know is how a theist can retain belief in a nonphysical being (God) and still have a coherent definition of nonexistence. — Agent Smith

Because of faith. They just have beliefs, theists do not want knowledge. Even, when they use that, they tend to commit terrible paradoxes about God's existence.

Because of faith. They just have beliefs, theists do not want knowledge. Even, when they use that, they tend to commit terrible paradoxes about God's existence. — javi2541997

Most interesting! — Ms. Marple

If you don't give a rat's ass about logic, anything goes!

Awesome!

Faith – fideism / make believe – doesn't require, or depend on, any such "coherent" notions. Theism (i.e. theology, theodicy), with regard to reasoning, amounts to playing tennis without a net.

:up:

If you don't give a rat's ass about logic, anything goes! — Agent Smith

i.e. principle of explosion (à la "fiat lux") :sparkle: