Sorry, maybe not. Pandeism sounded like some Shamanism religion in Asian countries. I heard that they believe every object has souls and spirits ...etc. Actually I am not familiar with any religion or theism at all. :D

It is just a logical argument, not spilling into religion. :)

The presenter made clear that it is not the rhetoric or religious God he is talking about.  He is talking about the concept of God in philosophy, and its relation to how the universe works.  How they could have been related to each other, or not related at all etc from Philosophy of Cosmology point of view.  

So words like "dragon" and "ghost" have 'wrong' definitions? — Michael

No idea on dragons or ghosts. I personally have never thought about logical definitions of either of them. They are subject to debates and logical investigations, I think, if someone comes up with some logical arguments concerning them.

Every word is invented by imagination. So what about the word "omnipotence" makes its definition wrong — Michael

Hmm... I am not sure, if every word is invented from imagination. Some words are invented out of the concrete objects, but some are invented out of indeed pure imagination? Omnipotence is the latter case.

When one picks up words which has no matching real world object, give that meaning to yet another abstract concepts, and then invent some, what look like logical arguments, engage in the debates with others, and the result is confusion. :)

I don't know what you mean by the definition of "omnipotence" being wrong. — Michael

The definition of omnipotence is wrong because that is just a word invented by imagination.
But in the real world, there is no such a being with that power.

Whether you want the term "omnipotence" to include being able to kill oneself or to include being unkillable (even by oneself) or to contradictorily include both is irrelevant. — Michael

That was what I was saying above.

Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist? — Corvus

If a being is omnipotent, he can live forever. If he cannot live forever, then he is not omnipotent.
If he kills himself, he stops being omnipotent, so it is impossible thing to do. Therefore is it not the case, either the definition of omnipotence is wrong, or a omnipotent being does not exist?

Surely if a being is omnipotent, then he can reincarnate himself too. What would be the point of killing himself, when he can reincarnate?

iow It is not possible to know, if non existence is definitely better than existence.

The best thing for all men and women is not to be born; however, the next best thing... is, after being born, to die as quickly as possible. — Silenus

It is pointless to die as quickly as possible, if you had to reborn. If rebirth was some religious illusion, it would be still a terrible thing to happen for the deceased, because the state of the eternal non existence would be too uncertain, boring and intolerable.

If one lives till old age, then the one is lucky.
Many perishes long before reaching old age.

Again, this can be also an linguistic issue also.
In English, Science means those subjects which use hypotheses, tests, observations, experiments and then establish theories such as physics, chemistry and biology.

But in German, Science = Wissenschaft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wissenschaft
means any subject such as art, literature, social science, philosophy .... etc that can be studied and learned.

Wissenschaft
/ˈvɪs(ə)nʃaft/
=
the systematic pursuit of knowledge, learning, and scholarship (especially as contrasted with its application).

all Buddhists believe that desire is the source of suffering. — TiredThinker

Buddhists seem believe, there are 4 different sources of suffering.
1. Existence
2. Desire
3. Ending
4. Path

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Noble_Truths

I don't agree those are necessarily suffering. It is just matter of opinion.
Existence is absurd.
Existence without desire is meaningless.
Ending happens regardless wanting or not wanting to end.
If life is a journey, then path is needed.

It's not undeniable though, that's the point. I could be a figment of your imagination for all you know. From your perspective, I'm just someone passing by in a crowd unnoticed, and the wild thing is, you're the same to me - a passer by in my movie, of which I'm the star. — counterpunch

If you are doubting about Existence, I think you are practicing Metaphysics.

That so, nonetheless, it seems that like me, other people are able to establish valid knowledge of reality with a rationale, and logic independent of both our subjectively conceived and centred experiences. That shared valid understanding of reality is logically prior to our individual experience. It's the difference between statistics and anecdotes. — counterpunch

Objectivism is just multiple agreed subjectivism.

Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy. It has plenty of critics but as a popular intro it is quite good. The way he weaves the narrative historical thread between individuals and periods of history is very good in my opinion, as it opens up the perspective of the 'history of ideas', which is technically a different subject to philosophy but very much linked with it. — Wayfarer

That book will take many days to finish, if not many weeks. It is almost similar amount of pages as the Bible. Still a great book.

"What does it all mean? - a very short introduction to philosophy" by Thomas Nagel, OXFORD — Corvus

Anyone can read this book in an hour or two. Yet, it covers most main topics in philosophy. After that, move on to the next books.

It matters that I try to exist; and that's why I wrote the post. — counterpunch

There is an undeniable evidence that you exist.

Did I answer your question? I'm not quite sure I understood it. — counterpunch

Sure. You proved subjectivism is not always sophistry.

This then sets a premium on the subjects knowledge of objective reality, over even, knowledge of self revealed via contemplations upon the nature of being. — counterpunch

But if you didn't exist, how would it matter to you? How could you have known it, or even written that post?

Which is the very point that is left out most of the time. — Wayfarer

:fire: :fire:

For me, philosophy begins with epistemology. Subjectivism and metaphysics are sophistry, not philosophy. — counterpunch

I feel that they are all important part of Philosophy. Epistemology without metaphysics would be meaningless. Objectivism doesn't exist without subjects.

I used to think pattern was for images and forms, not for the words or meanings.

Do all emotions have their causes? Perhaps some don't? Such as feeling "nothing". Chould such feelings be regarded as emotions? Are some emotions are more inherent than the others, and some are caused and invoked?

If we know about the causes, nature, and more accurate definitions of emotions, perhaps, we could understand emotions better, and answers to the OP could emerge naturally?

In Hume's case, I wonder if he was forced to admit that the idea of Self does not exist, because in his system of perception, every perception comes from the external world via impressions and ideas. But the self? It would be illogical to say the perception of self is coming from outside the external world into one's sensory organs.

The idea of self must come from somewhere inside of one's body, if it had to be the idea of self. So it was either admitting the self is in one's mind, or the mind itself, which will demolish his empirical system of human nature, or say "self doesn't exist." He must have opted for the latter.

I feel that there are some topics in psychology that science cannot handle such as the problem of self or subconsciousness or explanation on the premonitions and etc. They are studied and explained in the mystic approaches like from Freud and Jung's.

But there are definitely topics that can be and must be tackled in scientific methods such as diagnosing depression anxiety problems. For these problems, they carry out lots of scientific experiments and tests on the mass of people with the suspected symptoms. They have the clearly and fully established theories to the causes, symptoms and also possible treatments for the problems. In that regard, it is a fully established science.

Psychology is a wide area with the large number of different topics, branches of disciplines and schools. Some are classic mysticism forms, and some are fully scientific. A diverse and flexible subject.

What do you believe as the causes for emotions? Are some emotions caused by purely bodily states? Some by thoughts and perceptions? Do they have some common grounds for the processes and existence?

Framing it as a matter of "belief" is to make the topic exterior to experience by default. — Valentinus

Can the framed beliefs without objective evidence and rational verification be subjects of the philosophical debates? Should they be in the realm of one's personal faith issue which are outside of objective logical investigations?

Enjoy your drinks. Gracias. Hasta la vista.

The attributed predicates of the described deity entail changes (events happening) in / to the world e.g. "parting of the red sea" "creation of the world in six days" or "second coming prophesy". — 180 Proof

Aha - they are from the Old Testaments, which are the scripts. I thought you are claiming to be able to observe the entailed changes now, by yourself directly and able to verify them yourself. If one believes what is written in the bible, then he would be believing surely God existence.

In possible world, they do. Everything is contingent.

I think therefore I am. Isn't that all we can know? — Down The Rabbit Hole

I know this is my hands in front of me. :clap: (waving and clapping). I am not thinking anything.

it's undefined and vague, therefore only an idea, not an existing entity. — 180 Proof

When some entailed changes are observed, it seems impossible to tell exactly what was causing the changes due to above mentioned undefinedness, vagueness and non existing substance of God.

If nothing can be known, — Cidat

then the rest of the sentence cannot be known.

if these entailed changes (events) are observed, then such a g/G must exist. So yes, in this way, it is quite reasonable to expect that such a g/G can be demonstrated to exist or not exist. — 180 Proof

What if those entailed / observed changes are by some other unknown / unverified causes such as super natural forces, ghosts or paranormal existence? How do you distinguish and verify which is which?

A great and interesting post. Thank you.

Faith is the belief without rational and verified evidences by leaping into the abyss unconditionally and blindly. Would it be rational / possible trying to prove God or God existence via rational means such as the logical debates?

If it's a delusion, more fool me! — Cuthbert

Here is a quote, I found.

“If one must have faith in order to believe something, or believe in something, then the likelihood of that something having any truth or value is considerably diminished. The harder work of inquiry, proof, and demonstration is infinitely more rewarding, and has confronted us with findings far more "miraculous" and "transcendent" than any theology. Actually, the "leap of faith"—to give it the memorable name that Soren Kierkegaard bestowed upon it—is an imposture. As he himself pointed out, it is not a "leap" that can be made once and for all. It is a leap that has to go on and on being performed, in spite of mounting evidence to the contrary. This effort is actually too much for the human mind, and leads to delusions and manias. Religion understands perfectly well that the "leap" is subject to sharply diminishing returns, which is why it often doesn't in fact rely on "faith" at all but instead corrupts faith and insults reason by offering evidence and pointing to confected "proofs." This evidence and these proofs include arguments from design, revelations, punishments, and miracles. Now that religion's monopoly has been broken, it is within the compass of any human being to see these evidences and proofs as the feeble-minded inventions that they are.”
― Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything

"What does it all mean? - a very short introduction to philosophy" by Thomas Nagel, OXFORD

I used to think the Oxford Handbook Series were for the new articles on the Philosophical topics. But found out that they are mostly 10 - 20 years old papers. Cannot beat the Online sources for the most current contents due to the constant updates they get.

I visit Philosophy Now time to time. Found it good for the books recommendations and some current stuff.

What I would be able to accept more, is that people may have more knowledge of the self as they approach death, in terms of reflection. I often think that the extent which we know ourselves is often in retrospect, because we don't always know who we are fully until we are placed in specific circumstances., That is because these may stretch us beyond the predictable, and may even change our innermost sense of self — Jack Cummins

Sure. An inspiring and deep thought on the point. :up: :fire:

There seem many university lecturers, artists, writers and researchers of the subject, active on Twitter, twitting about their current interests and activities on the topics minute by minute from every part of the world.