The Logical Positivists said all could, using this method. Wittgenstein showed it can't be done. Hence, Post-Modernism. — god must be atheist

Post-modernists would just deconstruct everything - even reasoning. To me they are not philosophers. Post-Modernists are art critics. Their interest is not in truths, but in desconstruction. When you deconstruct something, indeed truths vanishes, and things end up in some possible world.

That being said, this is a philosophy forum, so God-stuff is fair game to bring up. — darthbarracuda

I agree. The topic of God is controversial. Nietzsche didn't even bother proving God's existence. He declared God is dead. It is a good topic for philosophical debate. I feel that philosophers must rise above their faith and beliefs, and engage the debates from rational aspects. If one puts his faith and beliefs before reasoning, then he should be in church or temple, not in philosophical forums.

Will go with the CPR then. Thanks for your info and advice. Much appreciated.

Intuition?

Have you read any Kant?
I am not asking to be intimidating but to know how to reply. — Valentinus

Yes, just a little introduction.
I am planning to read something more substantial.

Having another go - could it be the causes?
If there are causal explanations, then empirical.
If no causal, then transcendental ???

can't bring up the noumenon. — Valentinus

ah ok. then it couldn't be the sense-able objects ...

Would it be, if one can see it, touch it and hear it via the sense organs, then the object is empirical. If the object is in the language as words, or in the mind as concepts, but not perceivable via senses, then it is transcendental? Sounds crude and obvious I know. Just guessing.

Sure, maybe they wont be able to read exact emotions but only vague ones intepreted from actions, but like Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be amazing. — Kinglord1090

I would guess the readings are accurate for the emotions, because they must have gone through many tests, and verified the results. But I still feel that the waves are not identical to the emotions in the brain. :)

Is this sentiment that we need to expelle so we can all evolve as a civilization. If you reduce your self by calling faith as a fairytale than your just throwing out disrespectful babble and no one will take you serious as an intellectual — SteveMinjares

My motto in philosophy is - "All I know is that, I know nothing." Does it sound intellectual?

What I am advocating is civil liberty. And how philosophy can be warped to justify oppression and excuse intolerant thinking.

My fear is not about my faith but warning you all about extremism ideology in any shape and form. And we should be preaching about open mindedness and not this arrogant thinking of I’m right your wrong or vice versa. — SteveMinjares

By the way, bringing in the phrases like "civil liberty ... intolerant thinking and warnings", etc sound like power hungry political threats. No thank you.

I do not believe this claim to be true as humans have been able to read brain waves which are caused by logic as well as emotions, for quite some time now.
Yes, we aren't able to do it quite well, but as Dr. Karoly Zsolnai Feher says, according to the theory of papers, if we go 2 more papers down the line, the amount of development would be astounding.
Neuralink, which is a company created by Elon Musk is already showing amazing progress in this field. — Kinglord1090

Surely the waves they see on the screen are not emotions. That would be an unacceptable reduction. It is like saying, the hot weather during the summer time is the temperature readings on the thermometer. Or the voltage readings on the voltmeter are identical to electricity.

I think emotions are the private mental states in the brain, which are only perceivable by the owner of the state. Others can only read it via the behaviours, linguistic and facial expressions of the individual.

For example, I would only know that you are happy by hearing that your say that you are happy, your facial expression looking happy, and you are jumping up and down making some happyish noise ...etc. There is no other way, that I would know you are happy. Of course, those scientists may look at the brain waves coming out on the device screen connected to your head, and tell ah this is the happy wave it looks like, but that is not the actual happy emotion itself they are looking at, no matter how accurate the device might be, they are just seeing some symbolic quantified representation of the mental states, rather than the emotion as entity itself.

Yes. Some say that 90% of Philosophical problems would resolve by themselves, if they managed to establish valid definitions of the concepts.

When we ask "why do they try to prove God exists", we are NOT saying, they shouldn't. It is really asking about the logical and rational motives and backgrounds for the probes.

In Philosophy, we must ask and argue about anything in doubt and unclear. When we keep silence, Philosophy ceases to be Philosophy.

I prefer happiness to unhappiness, but for plastering a wall, I would go for a plasterer's trowel. That seems to me to be how the the word works. It's akin to asking what's better than good. I have already suggested the evolutionary benefit of intelligence which depends to a great extent on the environment, but as to pursuit of knowledge and wisdom, well I do it (at a leisurely pace) because it makes me happy, or at least happier than pursuit of ignorance and folly. — unenlightened

If you know how to make yourself happy, then that is a great knowhow. The Good thing about happiness acquired via knowledge and wisdom lasts, unlike happiness derived from ignorance or illusion, which is usually short-lived.

Did I say anything? — TheMadFool

I am not sure.

is not language reducible to meaning and therefore being and not to words? — TheGreatArcanum

No, language cannot be reduced to the beings. It represents the beings. You use the language to REFER to the beings. Words refer to the objects. Sentences refer to the facts and situations in the world.

Meanings are just cultural and historical contracts on the words. I can make my own private language with a few made up words with my own meanings, and agree to use the language with the new meanings only amongst a group of a few people, and it will work well although limited at first. In a few years of time, the words will increase, as we add more new words and the meanings to it, and might cover the all the objects in the world.

If abstract objects exist, are propositions abstract objects? If not, what are there dimensions? If abstract objects exist, can they be physically contained within space, or must we then concede to the existence of a non-spatial realm which is transcendent of space? — TheGreatArcanum

Abstract objects do exist, but only in the mind and language, not in the real world space as tangible objects.

Just because you know a word such as "God", doesn't mean that it exists in space as the real object. Of course it depends on what you mean by "God". If you define a willow tree in your garden as "God", yes it does exist, but that would be your own private world, not the world that the other rest of human population believes as world.

Poor old Corvus not only has to get old and die eventually, as we all do, he has to imagine getting old and dying over and over again even while he is actually young and in his prime. So even the good times are bad. — unenlightened

Like many, I don't keep thinking about my own ageing and death. But it is the news of the others who have been dying, seem the cause for unhappiness I guess. But is happiness always best thing in life?
Some say happiness is self deception and illusion caused by ignorance.

In the case of the pre Aristotle thinkers, knowledge and wisdom seem to have been pursued with more avidity than happiness.

Probably only the case if you believe God exists. — Tom Storm

I thought that it is an irrational and absurd act to keep trying to prove Existence of God, if you already believe in the Existence of God.

I was also under the impression that logical arguments cannot prove the external objects' existence or represent even the complexity of daily human life contents. They are just methods for checking and verifying if claimed arguments are consistent and valid. It cannot even prove if the conclusion is true. True conclusions are not always valid, if drawn from inconsistent arguments. And false conclusions can be valid in the opposite case.

It seems true that more you learn and get to know about reality, less happy you get.
I guess it is because of the fact that when one gets to know more about life and the world, there is less room for imagination and expectation. What you were playing with imagination and expectations on life and reality, hard and cold realism and raw knowledge of them fill the place.

Does it mean that imagination is the opposite of nature to knowledge in the mental activities?

When I was a child, I recall I was a real stupid, naive and dumb. Everything I thought was wrong. And my beliefs on the world and people were based on my wrong imagination. But I was really happy.
I used to believe that humans live forever. The old people were born old, and I was born young, and I will stay young forever. I used to believe Santa was real. I thought my parents were Gods, they could do anything. And the world is the town I lived in ...etc. But as I was growing up, I have been realising that they were all wrong and false beliefs. My happiness has been shrinking proportionally, actually exponentially. Everyone was getting old fast, and they were leaving this Earth for good. The world is unnecessarily and inconveniently huge and full of disaster prone problems, the future of human civilization is uncertain, there are lots of social problems in the societies. My father has passed away, and he no longer replies to my emails ... etc etc.

Emotions are private mental state, that is not directly accessible to the other beings. Emotions of others can only be construed by the behaviour or linguistic expressions. So whether it is AI robots, or human's, or even it were a piece of cheese, as long as their emotional responses are within the context of human emotional familiarity, it will be the same, I guess.

Do abstract objects exist? — TheGreatArcanum

What is your definition of "exist"?

Wow, many interesting posts here. Thank you.

I was wondering if logical arguments on Existence of God could prove anything before, because God is out of the boundary of our reasoning. But maybe it can, depending what definition of God one takes.
And perhaps it could be a fruitful attempt in strengthening one's belief in God more. Because humans are rational beings, they need rational argument and proof of their beliefs even if they are beliefs on abstract objects.

There are, of course, many issues that could be further clarified in this issue such as, the logical validity of the definitions of God, and agreement on the nature of God i.e. whether God is just an abstract concept , some sort of supernatural force, or physical being etc.

I will take time reading each post in this thread when I get some peace and quiet time, and when I find points that I am not sure or want to clarify, then I will get back with the questions.

You gotta experience stuff. It takes time. — Bylaw

There supposed to be what the Psychologists call "Religious Experiences" which happen to some people in their lives such as hearing God's voice, seeing apparitions of divine images and witnessing inexplicable phenomena and feeling holy energies around them etc. But private and subjective experiences like these are challenging to be proved and explained objectively in scientific ways.

I have an old book by William James called "Various Religious Experiences" somewhere in the room to start reading in the near future.

Would logical and rational discussions and the process of proving God's Existence strengthen theists' beliefs in God and faith, or would it be just pure academic practice?

Socrates clearly states that the soul is immortal and urges his companions to have confidence in their own souls.

This is not a proof it is an assertion.
— Fooloso4

It is an assertion that is accepted by Socrates and Cebes as proof. What atheists and sophists believe is not the issue. — Apollodorus

Does Socrates offer arguments in believing and asserting Soul is immortal? What are they?

Not sure how much time you've spent in palliative care. In most cases people are mentally robust and are still quite strong. Their death might be weeks or months away and sometimes they go home for a bit and return. Most of them are well able to make decisions. Some are in denial because the decline hasn't started. Some give up in depression. Some turn to God. Some drop God. — Tom Storm

I was caring for my dying father in the hospice for 3 months, and witnessed the dying process.

He seemed to be going through a lot of illusions, fantasies and dreams and past memories coming back to him.  He was a very faithful Christian before being ill, and very active in the Church too. But a few months before his death, he was not talking about anything religious at all.  He kept talking about a lot of nonsensical things, as if he was seeing some ghostly figures in front of him.  His mind was gyrating between conscious to unconscious constantly. Sometimes he could not even recognise people, but sometimes he talked as if he was all OK just like he used to when he was healthy.  But his mind, for sure, was slowly fading away. It was as if the whole of his bodily health condition which was failing his mind.  Dying is the worst tragedy in human being.  It is the saddest thing.  I had been in deep mental shock and trauma for at least a year or even more after the experience of losing my father.

I suppose some people can then turn to religion for help in the situation.  I, having been an agnostic most of my life, didn't get any help from anything. Then I turned to the Metaphysical topics readings, which helped to some degree, and brought me here and some other Philosophical forums (not too active).

I am still an agnostic, but thinking of taking a position of flexibilism. = taking all the sides when convenient. :D

My point is: you raised Ayer - that when dying some people turn to God. I was simply saying the opposite is also the case. — Tom Storm

I think Ayer has converted to Christianity near his death, but when he was still in good mental state being aware of his upcoming death. He was NOT in the hospice or in death bed when that happened.

You make it sound like a screenplay being contrived for an umpteenth Spielberg/Hanks movie collaboration. — Tom Storm

Just to make a point that those who are dying imminently wouldn't go out and start inventing religions. It would be those who were the livings had invented them thousands of ancient years ago, and kept passing the tradition to the generations and generations in the same field. :D

If accepting as true what you want so badly to believe is true is the definition of faith it seems a poor accomplishment....almost like signing a false confession under duress. — Pantagruel

But you hear about many cases of confessions of those religious converts from diehard atheist, agnostic or no idea people due to some life changing moments of circumstance which occurred one funny day, and turned them religious ever since etc.

Isn't that what faith and religion are about? Irrational, blind, sudden and absurd just like life?

Sure, dyings might not have the mental ability to care about religion at the time of dying. But could it not be the living who invented the religion knowing that it is the most powerful tool to manipulate human fear, which is death, and preaching to the people, that the only insurance ticket for securing the afterlife is blind faith and obedience to the religious regime?

I did some pretty hard-ass praying to a god that I sure hoped was listening — Pantagruel

Sounds like the Kierkegaardian existential situation. A belief that might motivate the believer leaping into the abyss of faith ...

They say, lifelong atheist Philosopher, A.J. Ayer had converted to a Christian just before his imminent death. Could religion combat the fear of death? Could it be, in the end, what had been invented for?

No worries mate. I appreciate your pointing out, because when we ask about something, and thinking together for the answers, it is a moment that our consciousness get expansion. Thanks a lot.

Great definition. Thanks for sharing. :up:
I feel that the Classic Logic and Modal Logic not too much useful for my own daily life applications. Maybe it is because I don't know much about them too, but I feel they are more suitable and useful for the specialised applications in the technological fields.

I find the Informal Logic more useful and practical for my own daily life applications such as debating, discussing and negotiating. I am a newbie student for the subject, and have been reading the books trying to learn more about it myself.

Well spotted TMF. As you rightly pointed out, they are not the typical classical logical statements at all. They are more the sort of example cases from the Informal Logic.
But my point was to demonstrate, how daily life dialogues, intentions, dispositions and thoughts are like, and trying to convert them into the Symbolic Logic and Truth Table formats doesn't work.

There are differences in creative, warm and positive emotions which are vital for art, friendship and human relations, and negative, cold and explosive emotions which are destructive and not nice for anything and anybody.

The former emotions must be encouraged and enriched, but the latter must be controlled and calmed down? :)

By the way, what would be some examples of "...logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language"? — TheMadFool

Yeah, I picked it up somewhere, but cannot recall where. Anyhow ...

Another example would be,
If S and T, then CG.

If it is sunny and I have time, then
I will cut the grass.

But for S condition, what if it was partly sunny and
there was some rain too, and then sunny again?

And for T condition, what if I had time, but only for 15 minutes?

For CG, what if I did manage to cut the grass, but only 1/2 of the lawn due to lack of time?

And for all that, what if I cut the next door neighbour's lawn instead of mine, because we just moved into the house, and didn't know the garden was shared by 4 other households?
S -> T then CG can look like a perfectly true statement, but in real life situations, it turns out not to be a very meaningful statement at all.

The truth table is great for simple mathematical workouts, but is not very practical for the real life applications due to its limitations in linguistic capabilities and also complicated situations arising from the real life representations.

I think that to make good argument, it must start from clear and logically valid premise, and all the following each propositions must be also valid and true, to arrive to the true conclusion. And then this argument will have higher chance of acceptance by the other party. And really only good valid logical arguments prepared with full linguistic logic can achieve that.

If there is any problems with either the premise or supporting propositions, then even if the conclusion is true, the whole argument will be looked upon bad argument or inconsistent one, and will be rejected by the other party. In legal court, the arguments like that will be thrown out, and the case will be lost.

notice that if any of the premises are false, the conclusion can be either true or false. — TheMadFool

Mostly agree with the argument and conclusion, but It is important to keep in mind that symbolic logic cannot capture all the intricacies of the English language. When an argument begins with false premise, and the conclusion is true, the whole argument can be judged as inconsistent.

But if for example I have a desire to kill let's say. Can't Logic affect my acts at the end?? Can't I use Logic to realize that this psychological desire is purely wrong and it will make my life also miserable?? I still believe that Logic is a way as to tame our psychological desires and filter them as to act in our own benefit at the end! Our desires aren't always in favor of our happiness but Logic for sure is.
By the way interesting what you mentioned about Modal logic. Never heard it. — dimosthenis9

When you say "I have a desire to kill.", it is not a logical conclusion, but a desire, which is a psychological state. Maybe logical thinking has provided the information, which triggered the desire to kill. But the books say that Logic's duty ends there, i.e. providing the information. With the information, you could also have had a desire to leave, desire to go to a pub, or felt nothing. Anything could have been the case. The kind of desire triggered, or nothing would depend on the individual's state of mind and the circumstances, not the logical conclusion.

I am not too familiar with Modal Logic, and under the impression, it is for Mathematicians, Computer Programmers and A.I Engineers. But I am sure, the origin of ML is Philosophy, and it is also a field of academic Philosophy.

Yes, I think so too. A great post. Thank you.