Logic can be used in philosophy. Of course. I don't deny that. Like I said, the only logical conclusion, if the gaps are closed, is the conclusion that there are gods who created the universe. — Hillary

-lol you can not use "logic" and "logical conclusion ....are gods" in the same sentence.
The gaps are there, you just cover them with a magical plug that you made up.

And just as science is involved in philosophy so is, and should, theology be. — Hillary

No. theology has no room in philosophical inquiries. Philosophy has a goal to arrive to wise conclusions through sound arguments while theological conclusions are not the product of/ or interested in sound arguments.
IF they were you would be able to present the facts that verify these theological premises, but you can't.

-" The truth value can be demonstrated by the existence of the universe."
-The existence of the universe can only demonstrate as true the claim : "the universe exists".
You will need additional observations for your gods in order to convince their existence or their role in it.

The fantasies are restricted by what we see in the universe. — Hillary

-Only Unsound arguments and their conclusions are restricted from being used in additional philosophical arguments.
So you didn't answer if you understand soundness and how it is connected to logic and knowledge.

It's you preaching atheology. — Hillary

Theology and atheology are irrelevant to philosophy. Logic took care of that issue. Wisdom need knowledge and logic needs sounds argument.

The assumptions are fully justifiable — Hillary

NO they are not...they are assumptions that can't be verified...thus unjustified to be used as auxiliary assumptions in a new argument.

Only within your conception of philosophy this isn't the case. — Hillary

There is one philosophy.....the intellectual effort to produce sound arguments and wise conclusions.
Theology is not in a condition to provide soundness in philosophy.

The existence of gods is justifiable because of their existence, — Hillary

-Do you know what circular reasoning is?????Rhetorical question, the answer is available above!

which you might claim an unjustified claim, because claims, according to you, are only justified when there is evidence that the claim is true. — Hillary

-According to the Soundness an argument must have in order for its conclusion to be used in a philosophical framework...not according to me lol

But like I said, the evidence of the claim is the existence of the universe. — Hillary

Again the existence of something can only be evidence...for its existence, not your assumed entities.
You will need additional evidence for those. What is assumed without evidence can be dismissed without any.

The magical explanation, a universe from a divine hat, is the ONLY explanation (if the gaps are closed). — Hillary

-That is kindergarten philosophy...argument from personal incredulity. Your claims are nothing more than fallacious conclusions.

In the magician's case, the trick actually can be known. The trick the gods played can't be known, though we can investigate the material universal and life evolving in it. And learn about the gods and their reasons for creation. — Hillary

-You are making a claim about knowledge...so we are off the Philosophical field...you will need to provide objective evidence for that knowledge claim.

The only one undermining your efforts ....is you sir. There is nothing that you can't do if you are willing to challenge all your assumptions.

Yes!....and this is why Aristotle is know for his work on Systematizing Logic and Philosophy...not for his philosophical ideas lol.!
A better questions would be what makes processes unroll at a specific direction or stones fall downwards.
In Aristotle's case we know how detrimental this "why" question was for his philosophy. He was guided by a teleological fallacy by assuming purpose and intention in natural processes.

[r Maybe but then again, pointing out that people still insist in using the same heuristics in their philosophy ~500 years AFTER the revolution of the Philosophy of Nature is a Description of a fact, not an conclusion based on unsound premises......

A Philosoophy of Science course by Paul Hoyningen can provide great info on a systematic methodology of knowledge evaluation.

Yeap...you are right!

Socrates can speak for himself.....

You really do just make it all up as you toddle along. — universeness

-Either that or she is trolling everyone....including her gods. According to her. her gods fancy reason...but I can not really say the same for her arguments.
She even challenged the usefulness of sound arguments and logic in Philosophy.
So I am not sure she is for real...or we are just interacting with a new age caller of the Atheist Experience show lol.

Why isn't it happening the other way round though? Why isn't all that happens running the other way round? Why isn't the universe collapsing, Sunlight moving towards the Sun, or the rain falling up? Why don't my thoughts run backwards, do I hear things after which sound leaves my ear? Why doesn't cause precede effect? Wouldn't it be easy for a god to precisely arrange for it? — EugeneW

-Why? Are you asking a "why" question about a natural phenomenon....like "why little John eat all the cake" type of questions?
In nature we observe phenomena and we explain what empirical regularities force specific rules to emerge. We don't assume teleology as if it was a matter of choice. Processes unroll and cause other processes to emerge. There is no place for "why" questions of that short.
Now if you choose to respond to my post......it WILL be the cause for your reply.
So the answer for "why" things happen the way they do in nature...is ...because they do. Causes kick start effects and so on...

Again! You claim that you are doing Philosophy but you don't know what philosophy is.

Philosophy's goal is to come up with wise claims about the world and expand our understanding.
That is realized by USING logic and constructing Valid Arguments. For the conclusions of those arguments to be wise Our Premises need to be SOUND.
Do you understand what soundness of an arguments is and how it is achieved?
Spoiler alert...by demonstrating the truth value of those premises.

If you keep using unjustified assumptions then you are not doing philosophy or metaphysics.
You are preaching your theology.
Why is this so difficult for you? Making up magical explanations can never expand our understanding..like when a stage magician tells you his trick was magical that explains nothing about it.

You don't understand!!!!!!
In order to say that you know the truth or that your claim is reasonable you need your claims to be based on methods(rackets) that can produce Objective results and play with the rules of logic.

You are trying to promote claims as true or reasonable or philosophical without any objective or epistemic justification....by just saying "its metaphysics".
NO it isn't metaphysics, its pseudo philosophy useless to everybody except those who seek comfort in made up answers.
You offer nothing wise or meaningful to the table if your assumptions are all over the place.

Check this discussion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qCwjSuQjMjg
Maybe you will see the gaps in your reasoning because he reproduces the same fallacious arguments on the question of the origins of life.

iron age heuristics — Nickolasgaspar


:fire:

Excellent point! No offense Hillary.

Argumentum ad novitatem? — Agent Smith

-identifying logical fallacies is not your strong point...right?

-"It depends. If we consider the material universe we play with the same rackets and the play field is well defined. Though your racket is different from mine. And besides tennis a lot of other plays could be played."
- You are missing the point. Independent of the nature of the universe our "rackets" should be able to produce objective results...if not then we admit that we don't know and can not prove

Concerning the theological play, there are many different rackets to play with just the same. But you play with no racket at all. Which is admirable, but I won't challenge you in that case, as thats unfair. — Hillary

-The only rackets that are relevant are those conforming to the rules of logic. Your metaphysics need to originate from a sound starting point...not an assumption that you don't care to demonstrate.

I dunno what you're talking about! — Agent Smith

That is the general dominant theme in these discussion ....

....it was already broken...... I only pointed out the cracks..

A safe guess would be that you also don't like when your assumptions are getting red flagged by logic and soundness...right?

The point is, I would love to play tennis with you. I have my own racket and balls though. A magic racket and magic balls. You would be tired and ask for mercy... Or blame the arbiter. "The ball was OUT!!!" — Hillary

The problem is that your racket and ball only share the same label and nothing else, plus you keep denying the use of the net and lines.....

But there are more facts than the ones about the material world we live in and even when we limit ourselves to the material world, there are conflicting views on how reality truly looks like. — Hillary

That is irrelevant...You can only make those evaluations based on the available facts not on facts you don't have or might not exist....lol
The time to assume different versions of realities is after you have the facts to support them...not a second sooner...well you can but your philosophy would sound like yours(irrational pseudo philosophy)

-"One might see point particles where others see structures. "
-this is why in science we don't just "see" things we do complete observations and produce objective descriptions....

An electron is both natural and energetic. Around a nucleus, depending on the orbital, it has varying angular momenta. though it's energy is well defined. — Hillary

-Read again, I never said it wasn't!!!!! I said its natural but it lacks the physicality we observe in larger scales

Like I said, in investigating nature, the physical, material world, high logical standards and proofs should be applied to our arguments about the material investigated. Your arguments about the electron are nonsensical and unsubstantiated or proven. Nor is there evidence (see what I did here?). — Hillary

-No it is'nt. You just proved that you are attacking a strawman I never said that electrons are not natural or energetic. I only pointed out that you won't find physical properties in that scale (rigidity,liquidity etc etc etc).
Btw when you make claims about the nature of stuff (you said something about being divine) that is also an nonsensical and unsubstantiated claim. when you claim "heaven exists" whatever that means you need to demonstrate that claim before using it as a principles for your metaphysical speculations.

you sound like an amateur tennis player bragging on how good she is but when I challenge your claim and offer you a racket and a ball ...you answer is "I don't play tennis with a racket and a ball or a net".
This is what you do with your syllogisms...you remove all obstacles that would prove how bad your claims are.....but you need to understand that you can not hide your fallacies.

Indeed, you can! I'm not saying I know the truth for you. — Hillary

No you don't....I do! You can't know the truth because you are an inferior human being! How can that is possible?
Now joke aside. Truth is an evaluation terms we use on claims that are in agreement with facts.
You admit it yourself you can not provide proof for your claims. So you can not claim that you know the truth.
YOu accept claims as true to ease your existential and epistemic anxieties...that's all.

-"There are more objective truths, and depending on who you ask, a different story will be given. "
-those are "Subjective" and they are not truths but claims....Try using the correct words.

The states of electrons around a nucleus are just as physical as any physical macro system. — Hillary

-Its natural and energetic. Physicality rises in larger scales.

-"No, it's not that which allows them to interact. That's a wrong statement and logically false."
-No it isn't and as a superior male I am right (see what I did there?).
Wow its really easy to argue by your standards !

It's the stuff around you and the stuff you're made of. — Hillary

No the stuff around me and the stuff I am made of...is stuff.
The qualifier "divine" implies things that you will have to demonstrate before placing it there.

Again, there is no need to proof, verify, or give evidence. Only in the scientific investigation of the material world this is of importance. — Hillary

-Of course it is...if you want to do philosophy, to produce Wise claims you will need Valid and Sound arguments..not unwarranted assumptions.
I can also say that I can dismiss all your claims because you are an inferior woman and deny to provide any objective justification for that. Can you see the problem in your eagerness to keep your assumptions unchallenged?

Absurdism is a great philosophy, absurdly as that may sound. If I'm guilty of practising it, then that only is in my advantage. — Hillary

-No it isn't...and since you are an "inferior woman" my opinion is the correct one (again see how your reasoning works?).

The reasons are obvious. To give a reason for existence. How rational can one get? — Hillary

-You assume that existence has a reason...you need to demonstrate that not just assume it. If not then you are proposing an irrational assumption.

I don't assume that, but scientists like Tegmark or Hawking do. Hawking even thinks God is a mathematician. — Hillary

Tegmark is a mathematician....what did you expect? Hawking was a "poet, its not fair to accuse him for that.

Which some of them are, and it can be argued that some of them, being members of the human god species, played a wicked role in creation. — Hillary

-Not interested in what you believe...only in what you can demonstrate as sound...

It is, as we talk about agency, and charge is an agent. — Hillary

No it isn't. We are talking about non natural agents and how you can demonstrate believing in them to be a reasonable act.

The question is: why does heaven need verification in the first place? For me it doesn't. — Hillary

- There is this thing call logic......
Fallacies are nothing more than labels we put on arguments containing unverified premises.
Do you even know the value of logic in Philosophy????

Why did you demanded from me to verify my claim "women are inferior to men''?
So your personal thoughts on what needs verification or not is irrelevant. I can make the same claim and say that your argument about heaven is not just irrational, but wrong since for me the claim "heaven doesn't exist" doesn't need justification.
It can go both ways...and this is not how we reason or should reason. This is not philosophy

Consider that in quantum physics, the orbit of electrons have values that can only be defined in terms of integers. That is a fundamental constraint on the nature their existence. Yet the fact that it’s an integer can’t be said to be causal in any direct physical sense. — Wayfarer

-That is because in those "energetic" scales "physicality" doesn't emerge. Physical properties emerge in larger scales (molecules and their structures).
Don't get me wrong. Electrons' values are natural phenomena but we shouldn't confuse them with physicality.

It’s not as if integers ‘do’ something, like exert a force. It’s rather that they are indicative of a constraint, which the electron must conform to in order to exist. — Wayfarer

-So the manifestation of the energetic footprint of electrons depends on that specific value.
This manifestation of their energetic property allows them to interact with other systems and particles.
Interaction is one of the qualities that defines "existence". Are we in agreement?

I will be back...sorry for not informing you about that.

You have a point, but, from what I gather, this is part and parcel of philosophy and science. Philosophy is more deconstruction than construction if you catch my drift à la Socrates who was the wrecking ball of the ideaverse. After him, all that was left were piles of rubble where once majestic belief systems had been erected! He was the Genghis Khan of the world of beliefs. — Agent Smith

-Well the parcel that Philosophy and science has to open is....>Science provides additional facts to our epistemology and Philosophy tries to understand what that means through the construction of wise claims.
Philosophy job is to deconstruct and put things back again in a more meaningful way, but what good it makes when .....the address(language) on that parcel ships it straight to the realm of Absurdism?

I mean we understand things through concepts and things we already understand. i.e. If you ask me how your phone doesn't work...and the answer was" it does work but its on a specific mode which is indistinguishable from not working"...then you have a useless explanation.

-"So do numbers exist? Scientific principles? The law of the excluded middle?"
-those are concepts that describe qualities and properties of reality but they do not exist in the way physical entities or processes do (well if you laser cut a number on pvc......that is a different story lol)

So it all has to do with how we use the word "exist".
The do not exist but they are real because they describe real things in the world.

I say no. In my lexicon, these are real, but they don’t exist, precisely because they don’t come into, or go out of, existence — Wayfarer

-I gave an answer without reading your answer and I am glad that you use the same definitions and standards to explain why concepts do not exist as entities and why they are real.

Rather they belong to the realm of what must be so, in order for things to exist. — Wayfarer

I am not sure if I would ever use that term "realm of what must be so''. In my opinion those are descriptions of the objective picture of reality.

-"The universal stuff is not the stuff of heaven."
-No heaven has ever been verified...so its irrational to introduce it in an argument as a premise.(Logic 101).

-"But it's still divine stuff, as they created it to let the heavenly realm evolve inside the material universe."
-Again no divine stuff has ever be demonstrated, so it is irrational to include it as a premise in your argument. You are promoting Unsound Arguments.

-"So there has to be a magical agens behind or better, inside of matter.
-Only if you prove the above unfalsifiable claims you can conclude to magical agents...which you will also need to provide evidence on why they are magical and not just a produce of matter.

-"Not gods themselves but something they, in their great wisdom, created."
-An other unfounded assumption... You are officially guilty for "practicing" the Philosophy of Absuridism.

-"Maybe they can influence it. The laws of quantum mechanics offer a means."
-No they dont' the laws of QM just describe the "behavior" of particles. They say nothing about magical entities. all those are irrational claims boothstrapt on QM without objective justification.

You keep telling us what you believe but you fail to demonstrate good reasons on why you do.
When I ask you...you point to an arguments from ignorance fallacy.

The math that's used in the description of nature has no real existence but the stuff it describes certainly has. — Hillary

-Why are you attacking a strawman? Math is just a tool we have to describe relations, differences, analogies and equations between properties and systems in nature. Why would you ever assume that math have a "real existence" lol.

-". Tell me, what is charge? "
-Not part of this conversation.

Rovelli and Carroll interpret our math and they know that they are hypotheses...not reality. Their interpretations only include natural concepts, they don't invent new realms with magical entities in them.
Charge is agent...not a thinking agent...not a god.

imagine a student using these concepts as an excuse for not handing out his homework! "My paper has a timeless ontology that doesn't interacts with photons..."
I mean who would ever accept that excuse....but by introducing "magic"(special pleading) fully grown ups will accept anything and they will even apply the noble title of Philosophy on top.
I mean if this isn't mental gymanstics/mastrurbation what exactly is it.

To be honest I live for the moment when a discussion with the title "Yeti and existence" will appear in a philosophical forum!
I guess for most people will not appear to be worthy of a philosophical analysis. After all what makes a superstitious claim worthy for a philosophical discussion is the number of people accepting it.

That statement is a continuation of Tillich’s earlier conclusion that God cannot be conceived as an object, no matter how lofty. We cannot think of God as a being that exists in time and space, because that constrains Him, and makes Him finite — Wayfarer

-Existence has termporal qualities by necessity. Something can not exist for zero seconds...
I think that in our efforts to protect concepts with great emotional value we are willing to make up concepts that have no meaning or descriptive power. "something existing for zero time and without minimum requirements criteria of what it means to exist in the first place"...or "nothing being a state of being before something came to be".
Superstitious ideas can only be the subject of Philosophy of Absurdism.

Do we? There have been a plethora of gods in the past (and some in the present) that are claimed to be real. We don't have to look farther than Christianity which claims god (or some aspect of it) has been real in the person of Christ. So far for idealistic concept. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Yes there have been, thousands of gods. Most of them are claims motivated by that same idealistic concept on an Ultimate agent. Others, like jesus, are attempts to unsuccessfully tie that concept on entities with a known existential status.( that is an indirect existential god claim more of an False equivalence).
The "plurality" of a claim(ad populum) doesn't benefit the epistemic or philosophical value of it.
I think you are arguing in favor of the narratives humans produced in their efforts to provide support to that initial idealistic concept. None of them has objective foundations or epistemic support or meet the criteria of "what it means to exist" or refer to the practical and real nature of knowledge (as a value).

Agnosticism does exactly that. It questions the epistemology of itself and that of the believers. I'm OK with either convincing evidence for a real god or a consistent framework of an idealistic god. I'd even allow for a construct, given there is consensus. But the believers can't even agree on the category. — ArmChairPhilosopher

-Not really, if it did it would be forced to adopt the default position set by the Null hypothesis. Because it ignores our epistemology and the scientific evaluation of god claims and basic rules and principles of logic, and embraces the unattainable goal of Absolute Knowledge, agnosticism gets to enjoy a place in our "philosophy".

The fault in your logic is that you assume to know what god is. You don't. — ArmChairPhilosopher

- First of all I assume nothing about what god is. I can only address the claims about that concept. I only need to know what those who accept the concept think about.
You are confusing the territory with the map.
I don't have to assume anything about the territory ...I can only evaluate a map which has things on it that aren't compatible with how we define a territory or their identified properties.

-"The position that the existence and Nature of god is not known / can't be known."
The main problem of this "definition" is that it includes a claim and a logical fallacy. (argument from ignorance). It uses the ill defined man made concept of "god" as an excuse to make a positive statement.

The only thing I can defend is that god is currently not known. — ArmChairPhilosopher

-Well what we do know about the god claim is that its an idealistic concept of an ultimate agent/entity. So the only actual nature(conceptual) we are aware of this claim is constantly excluded and ignored.
If we are aware and accept the criteria by which we define the existence of entities, then that concept doesn't exist in the world as a real one, like none of the idealistic concepts we strive for (morality, justicy, equality, etc) exist as entities in the world.

In order to render the existential claim of god unknowable, we cheat(special pleading). We don't use the same standards and criteria of existence that we would use in any other case. We even go further and suggest unfalsifiable realms to tuck the concept away from "public eyes".
So the one unwarranted assumptions brings another one and very quickly they start to pile up.
So we end up with a begging the question fallacy on a heavily poisoned well....by using the unattainable made up concept of Absolute Knowledge as an excuse and a faux facade of "epistemic humility".

Every Philosophical inquiry starts(should start) by getting familiar with our epistemology, what we know and how we know it. Agnosticism doesn't do that. It ignores how humans came to be "living" with this concept (the only nature that we can study) and uses the qualities of an unfalsifiable premise to promote an argument from ignorance.
Agnosticism is not a humble or virtuous position...its a red herring and an attempt to justify a begging the question fallacy on a Universal Negative. Its "I don't know if you stop beating your wife" type of scenario.

IT hides behind an other made up idealistic concept, already mentioned, that of Absolute knowledge, when the only type of knowledge accessible to us is limited by definition. Knowledge is an evaluation term. We accept as knowledge any claim that is in agreement with current facts and has instrumental and practical potentials (informs our syllogisms and actions).
We can only evaluate a claim based on the practical version of knowledge and this is the only meaningful way...if we want to avoid all the above fallacies.

"we"meaning the concept of the self.....are the emergent "product" of our brain functions. We can go further and state that our brain functions are affected by our biological setup and environmental influences.
What makes the real us is Previous experiences and the Situations and conditions of our current experiences.

Quotes are a good way to highlight your irony, sarcasm, mocking etc....just saying.

Anything and everything seems to be, well, dual purpose, ethically that is: a bullet can both kill and save a person. — Agent Smith

Not both....but can either or depending of the situation.

-" I wish there was an international treaty that says all weapons used in warfare must be for good "
There is an international treaty and laws, this is why we have the term war crime.

-"(for instance, if you shoot someone, do it in such a way that you save that person's life or thereabouts)."
-so why shooting someone in the first place? Injuring a person is "for good"? What if the injury you inflict leaves a chronic pain to that person or perminant disability.

Is it then reasonable to conclude that ethics wasn't top on the list of God's priorities — Agent Smith

-Neither Glabarclurchen's List includes ethics. My point is that you first need to demonstrate the existence of a god, then demonstrate that he has a legitimate interest in putting up lists and then show that ethics isn't in it.
In reality nothing in our world has a "dual purpose". Purpose needs to be demonstrated, not assumed. What we label goodness and evil are just fluctuations in the process called life or existence that we evaluate according to our preferences.

So you claim that you are more familiar with Greek politics than those who live in the country and follow the events.......lol whatever.