What is the problem with absurdity? Where is there anywhere that states that there has to be a solution to a question about existence? Because we are not given immediate answers that would resonate with our predilections we are licensed to say that is reason for thinking something to be absolutely true; that is, if the opposite seems absurd? Logic... Causality... When have these things ever given any truth about anything? What 'truth' worth anything is? The truths ascertained by language that are of highest worth are approximations, probabilities... LIES... Because the 'the opposite' of something cannot be true... This makes it true? And so a schizophrenic who sees a man walking in the hallway shouting at him or her, who is made to become aware that there was 'actually' no such thing that happened becomes to know through therapy that this is true and that the opposite of such a truth is false, which would be the nonexistence of such a truth, which is taken at face value to be the nonexistence of the man in the hallway; but this is not the case... The opposite of such a truth is what would be characterized to be false... Yet the whole truth and or falsehood is premised upon and rooted in the taken-to-be-in-some-way-true man in the hallway. Because the nonexistence of the man is true 'in reality'; this does not mean that the opposite of the existence of the man is its nonexistence. The opposite of the man is rather 'that which is uncovered' in the explanation which suffices at replacing the real-ness of the man, which only subsequently renders the man nonexistent with explicit regard to this (again, subsequent) formulation. The man is an existent. It existed and exhibited an effect. Even a fantasy is a fact, for such and such a fantasy could lead to a person losing their lives (Jung). The opposite of something is not nothing. Something is in itself something: the opposite of it would have to be something. The opposite of something is everything. For nothing is finite without an infinite reference point. And so because the idea of existence coming from non-existence is absurd... This does not make it any more logical to maintain otherwise. This is not an adequate substantiation. Existence, furthermore, is the only reality. There is no reality without existence, and no existence without reality. The two are tied together, and neither goes farther than the other.

Existence being infinite? I am really not sure what this means. What is infinity but a demarcation of a lack of further insight? Is infinity not absolutely incomprehensible? It is obviously a concept. But because we have a concept for something... this does not make it any more understood. Heidegger took this very premise and wrote Being and Time. If existence is infinite then it must be imcomprehensible, and furthermore reason must be a reductio ad infinitum... Reduction ad absurdum, if a may... And therefore reason itself is absurd...

But I am not afraid of the absurd. I am afraid of no concept. And I trust no concept.

I think the mistake you make is that you treat Existence and reality as having the same semantics. — Philosopher19

Because I am not deluded by the seemingly necessary distinction between subject and object, which has been reconciled in the principle of intentionality, explained by Husserl originally but culminated in Sartre, I think.

reason dictates that sensing something and understanding something are two different things. We understand that Existence may have aspects that we are unaware of (this is not paradoxical). 1) Reason tells us that we don't know if Existence has the potential to generate/sustain a being with a 100 senses, but we know it can generate/sustain a unicorn. 1 is not something that we sense, it is something that we understand. — Philosopher19

Which brings me back to reiterating that there is absolutely no synthetic a priori truth per reason itself, as if it could be proven... An example of this is 7 + 5 = 12. The 'conclusion' '12' is obviously synthetic and true absent of experience, which would render 12 a posteriori. But this truth, the course of which 12 is reached by this synthetic a priori method is quite different than what would be easily understood logically, piece by piece, causally, concatenated like what would be analytic a priori or synthetic a posteriori.
How does reason dictate that there is a difference between sensing something and understanding something? What would reason be without a posteriori 'knowledge?' Existence is known through sensation. Understanding is precisely sensation. "I sense that is correct." Or perhaps this is a vague, worthless metaphor?

What makes us 'aware' that something is such and such anyway? How could it go any further than the anthropomorphization it is based in?

Saying that existence is in a monad...

You are definitely in bad faith saying existence has the capacity to generate whatever. Why does there have to be something doing the generating?

Avoidance of responsibility?

You should see the phosphenes when you close your eyes in darkness while your brain is on LSD or psilocin, or any psychedelic substance. Extraordinary colors, patterns, fractals, zooms, geometry... Even colors that you never see otherwise.

agreed...

Though Descartes also supposedly brutalized dogs.

Reason is not human just as sight is not human. We have access to these things. — Philosopher19

Wittgenstein said that if an animal could speak, we still would not be able to understand it. According to this logic, sight is human... It is the only reference we have. How could we make any inference about a quality when it is fundamentally formed into an image... Our image! Anthropomorphized? To say that reason is not ours... That is grandiose.

Reason is infallible. If reason wasn't infallible, then one day the definition of a triangle would be x another day it would be y. But this is never the case. — Philosopher19

As long as humans are reasonable, perhaps they are infallible... But they can be unreasonable by virtue of reason itself. An example of this is synthetic a priori judgments, which give us absolutely no insight into the true nature of existence... And yet reason is infallible in understanding existence? We wish to make observations and gestures towards truth and knowledge of existence... And all we have is this lamely functioning reason, which has given us... ?

A triangle is analytically true a priori to be something with three sides equaling 180 degrees. This is not the only form of reason. Synthetic a priori judgments have absolutely no justification in reason, but in experience, in existence itself as human. And thus you have the inescapable dilemma of knowledge... Which, as I constantly maintain, is nothing but a game.

Reason clearly shows that rejecting omnipresence is absurd/paradoxical. We'd be failing reason by rejecting what it highlights to us as clearly paradoxical. If you acknowledge my argument, omnipotence and omniscience cannot be rationally denied either. — Philosopher19

Omnipresence is an illusion. What is everywhere all at once? God. God has not been shown to exist. Your circumlocution does nothing but uncover this unsturdy premise. Why should we even think that we know what omnipresence, omnipotence and omniscience would be when we absolutely know nothing?

You think we know because we are part of a Godhead given to us by reason. And this is nothing more than a modern mutation of ancient mythology.

Sartre would undoubtedly say that a belief in God is bad faith though, wouldn't he? Because the belief in a God is a subterfuge of responsibility?

To say that we are Existence is paradoxical. — Philosopher19

Then what are we? A monad?

I would say, instead, that we are indeed existence. A facet of existence. There is an infinite series of images that could constitute the whole of something, nevertheless unless one is referring to those empty husks (Hegel), the essence of something can be ascertained in the apprehension of any hemimorphic crystallization of it the base of which is clearly different. And as we are inevitably referring to being as hylomorphic, a glimpse into our existence as separate from 'Existenz,' we are a piece of which can be seen to be of form, and unmistakable differentiation, But it is not that we are separate. We are it. Are we to resort to Lacan's "I think where I am not therefore I am where I do not think."? If we, in any sense, take Lacan's statement as containing some sort of truthfulness, then the idea that pure reason constitutes a substantiation of the idea that we are not existence but rather of something else the truth of which is shown in pure reason (thought) is clearly not well based. I agree with Lacan in this regard. We are not nothing. But are everything we are not, and are not what we are... And that is precisely existence.

You will have to elucidate upon that please.

What is God?

You came to basically the same conclusion I did about his thought.

Existence not being omnipresent/all existing entails that existent things can be separate by non-existence (paradox). — Philosopher19

Sartre wrote a book maintaining this. 'Being and Nothingness'

Saying that it is rational that 'something' singular could be omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent seems to be overstepping our boundary of knowledge. If all metaphysics presupposes a theory of knowledge then all theories of knowledge presuppose a metaphysics. Knowledge is as if, nothing more. Furthermore, knowledge is human, and reason is human, and there is nothing that proves that reason is infallible, and that our conclusions do indeed mean anything other than the meaning we give it, according to the faith we have in what it can do for us. In the end, knowledge is for us, not for anything else, and thus it is dictated not by reason itself but that which contains reason and uses it as an instrumentality. In any case, knowledge a priori can not suffice. There must be a synthetic conclusion, lest it remains imaginary.
But... Who is to say that what is imaginary is not real?
This primacy of knowledge is an illusion lest one dissolves into an idealism or realism, which is the source of endless philosophical debate devoid of coherent conclusion and thus completely absent of any knowledge.

All I maintain anymore is that I do not know. Probability seems to be the paragon of knowledge... And this is utterly unstable.

But is omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence a rational concept? I think this premise is taken for granted.

I would agree with you... But this would render existence incomprehensible, would it not? For all we have for certain is our own existences, existences in concern for existence.

Nevertheless, nothing you have said necessitates an all knowing, singular being, but rather that which is infinite, ego-less.

Lastly, that which is irrational does exist. Emotion.
There is no rational cause of emotion lest one resorts to a fatalism.

Religion is socialized ego dissociation, and/or socialized art.

Keep in mind though, that the prototype of man could have already passed, and civilization could indeed be a post-case scenario in which problems like severe depression, schizophrenia, autism, genetic abnormalities, cancer and many other modern afflictions represent the never again attainable closestness to what would be a Utopian society.

Personally I think this 'utopia' was before surplus and civilization.

There is visual stuff when you close your eyes. They are called phosphenes. Have you heard of this? I, personally, have a theory about how sleep begins, with regard to phosphenes, and subjectively I have proven it, because it always works.

What bothers me so much is this aversion to what cannot be empirically distinguished, such to be defined like an atom can be, or a neural impulse. It is really sad; this pop-atheist, pseudo-philosophical simulacrum disguised as philosophical discourse today. And I'm talking about Dawkins, Sam Harris, Daniel Dennett , and others. Many others. Its just tasteless.

The phenomenologists attempted this... But I am about ready to say that philosophy is over... At least with what I have now at my disposal.

The pride of the peacock is the glory of God.
The lust of the goat is the bounty of God.
The wrath of the lion is the wisdom of God.
The nakedness of woman is the work of God.

William Blake

Have to listen to 'meet me in the woods’ by Lord Huron

!!!

And read the lyrics!

Well, I would say running the course of one's truest feelings is the most firm security. And the source of the greatest delight.

What is sad is that belief has been mutated into some sort of dialectic. "Everything that can be believed is an image of truth." William Blake

If you have beliefs that would perhaps, after some sort of assimilation and a lack of accommodation on the part of the focal point of such an assimilation, be shown to be commensurable with those of an organized religion... You are attacked. You are told that you are stupid, a moron, illogical, etc etc, subterfuge this, circumlocution that, and blah blah blah.

If you have the ability to TRULY believe something... Which... Even those who blow themselves up I daresay don't have it... Then you must be firmly based... For the only things that can be truly believed are those which are proximal, sure, certain... FEW!

The Bible does not give much sweet delight.

The hard problem of consciousness is the problem of qualia or Husserl's hyle?

There is simply a prior, non physical, phenomenal aspect that no understanding of the physical will ever give rise to: for such an understanding would have to suffice to replace it, which is utterly impossible, and is completely incommensurate with its object, and is bombastic in even a consideration.

This is not said nowadays because people are scared of being called a theist or, even worse, NOT ATHEIST! HOW SCARY!

As if such a statement says anything further!

insanus populi

Paraphrased...

Being is an immanence that cannot realize itself, an affirmation beyond affirming, an activity that cannot act, because it is glued to itself. (Sartre)

or... the one who is of "sweet delight" can never be told or made to believe anything contradictory.

How, then, are you able to determine what 'God' wants you to do, if, importantly, you cannot trust the objective truth of the statements within the Bible?

"The soul of sweet delight can never be defil'd."

William Blake

If there were an adequate substantiation of the existence of God, there would absolutely be no contrary argument!

Therefore, the existence of a supremely perfect being was necessary to make the idea at all possible. — Philosopher19

This is ridiculous. No matter what linguistic acrobatics you can use... If the statement "God exists" were analytically true, then it would only be true by virtue of the meaning of the words, which is an utter tautology. If the statement is synthetically true then the existence of God must be shown to be, and its existence must sit elsewhere.

Whist I acknowledge that some attributes of the supremely perfect being may be unknown to us, the outline is objective to all of us and sufficiently clear to warrant the move of labelling a being as perfect. To further make my point clear, can anyone rationally argue for something being better than an omnipotent, omniscient, infinite, eternal entity whilst omitting these core traits? — Philosopher19

Then you do not know what it is you are referring to and therefore Anselm\Descartes argument makes no logical sense. And this is the same for anything. It is supposed that we know. It is only supposed. Nothing more. I say, "It is a shell!" and thus you have Aphrodite.

There is indeed something greater than the idea of a supremely perfect being, namely the idea of something greater than a supremely perfect being, which, with the logic of the ontological argument, must exist. It is not 'necessary,' you say? The necessity of asking questions is prior to the so-called necessity of a prototype of thought. So you say, the existence of God has been necessitated... Then why do I still doubt? Nothing can be proved by a priori logic alone. And these prototypes are illusions. There is no absolute, perfect fruit, apple, tea, orgasm, god, etc. etc. It is all isolated and fragmented. These are bombastic constructs; psychological at best. The massive mistake is in assuming that we would be capable of even apprehending a God. If there were indeed a God... Why would such means be necessary in an apprehension?

can the mind think of something that has meaning but can never exist? — Philosopher19

I see a circulus vitiosus here. But furthermore, It seems that the very premise of the implied illogic of an affirmative reply is the answer to the question.

The idea of negating finite to get infinity is absurd. It’s actually more like a shift in semantical focus. You negate your focus on all finites so the only thing left to focus on is the infinite. Essentially, the infinite existence is there and negating finite things within it does nothing to its infiniteness. — Philosopher19

I am not sure I agree with this, and neither do I, in any sense, believe anyone should agree with this. If I negate my focus on all finites, the only thing left to focus on would be the infinite... Which would thus be finite. How could you focus on the infinite? You cannot, unless it is finite. The opposite of something is nothing, but it is precisely because we are the origin of nothingness that we can even consider the negation of existence to be nothing. In negating the idea of an imperfect being, which is remaining an idea, you would get the idea of a perfect being... This is inescapable. Furthermore, if a perfect being exists, then a supremely imperfect being exists, and what then? Would that not cancel out any remote relevance of the existence of either to our existences?

The nature of existence is such that I can think of so many hypothetical ways in which what may appear unjust can be fully justified in the end. — Philosopher19

This is absurd. So, a woman being brutally raped and murdered would somehow be justified or compensated for? Or, a woman who was brutally raped and lived the rest of her life with intense PTSD, who managed to have other good things happen to her... These good things cancel out the wrong and the unjust is thus compensated for?

Foedus!

In any case... Something coming from nothing... This is outdated.... If being was conceived in or from a subjectivity then it remains a mode of intra subjective being. Such a subjectivity is bereft of even the representation of an objectivity, much less with the will to create it.

Existence, in Sartre's words, is more-so uncreated... And is neither active nor passive but is beyond both.

"[Being] is an immanence which can not realize itself, an affirmation which can not affirm itself, an activity which cannot act, because it is glued to itself."

When we die we all become one?

listen to this song BTW.
Lord Huron - Meet Me In The Woods
I bet you will like it !

"Dumbledore! Is this... Real??"

"Just because it happens in your mind, Harry... Why should that not make it real?"

(Probably not the exact words but yes. I love Harry Potter)

We're talking about, and fleshing out the details for a criterion; what counts as thought and belief that is not existentially dependent upon language. — creativesoul

Poetic ideas. Fantasy.

Language is a rendering of experience. Belief is prior to language not in a temporal degree but is more proximal and/or primordial. Belief belongs to the realm of experience. Belief is instantiated by language in that belief lacks a manageable form prior to its translation. Language is rendered by belief. Language is, partly, a sublimation of belief. An example of this is as follows.

I met a person. I fell in love with that person. I believed that I loved them. I believe still that I love them. But the feelings constituting this belief do not originate with the words that contain them in such a statement about them. The feelings constitute an inclination, tendency and direction a sort of amalgamation of feelings and affects, and such a 'thing' crystallizes into language to be expressed. Is this not the fundamental operation of language?-- to, primarily, express? What would be expressed if it originated in the same tool of expression? Would all belief thus be a sort of simulacrum, representation after representation? Nihilistic? Some web of the arbitrary? This is obviously false. Something prior to language is expressed by language. Never does a belief originate in language, unless it is an artificial conglomeration labeled as 'belief.'

Belief is determined by many things, perhaps language capacity, intelligence, imagination, etc.

But what of the belief that something is right or wrong, with seemingly no conscious basis? An example of this is taboos. There are certain taboos in ancient cultures of which the basis for believing certain things transcends any linguistic approach to them.

There is too the tendency to completely change words and names of people in some ancient cultures based on beliefs that have absolutely no intelligibility ascertained through analysis.

I can easily say that it is intelligence rather than language that is the criterion of these sorts of beliefs.

Yes, it is what you do when you have the desire... Hmmm...

I am homosexual. I am in a relationshil with a male.

In your eyes you say I am immoral.

In truth, you do not know me. You have an idea of something I may be of or represented to be, but in the end this is abstraction, and the firm base of that which is (me and my relationship) are the actual emotions, feelings and intentions that define. You wish to define and compartmentalize or categorize me and what I supposedly am, but, in reality, what you have labeled me to be as immoral is an impoverished representation the creation of which has absolutely no base in reality at all. You say I am immoral for being a homosexual. I say you are delusional, because you have not even addressed me in the first place.

In the end you have absolutely no justification for your deity other than the faith that It is whatever It is. I'm thoroughly disinterested in this sort of thought, for those who think themselves to be wise are indeed the most unwise (Socrates -paraphrase)
Existentialism has all kinds of ideas about right and wrong, Sartre is not existentialism. You are already in Bad Faith, in terms of Sartre, but that is another discussion.
The idea that something is wrong and you are against nature or deviant or vile or sick or sinful or selfish, etc etc, because you do a particular thing that is not measurably negatively affecting anyone (which is what religion is stocked full of) is a disgrace to the human intellect.
One CAN indeed base morality upon something atheistic. How about love? How about happiness like John Mill?
But trying to base morality in something other than the morality of a particular thing, which is always based on intuition and feeling, is completely severing that moral component of the psyche from its typical spot. Moralists want an objective truth of morality, something like a constant reference point by which man could become God and judge, for that is the root of the psyche in terms of God... To be God... Or try to be. That is the ideal. Nothing like this will ever be. What about Robin Hood? The train track dilemma? You have philosophical , moral dilemmas precisely because there is no absolute reference point of a moral claim: there is only the intuition and faith of a particular right or wrong. In the end, people base themselves not upon what is supposed but what is believed to be known, known as if it were known... And these things known do not come from a book or another persons words but from within the inner workings of their own mind, their associations and their feelings regarding what life is and what their own existence entails.

And if someone bases their life otherwise... It is conditioning... And conditioning is extremely powerful. Its name is obfuscation of association.

Agreed

If people do not agree then the conversation is not good enough!

that is up to you my friend! What do you think is right!? I think love, happiness, freedom and care is right, and these things are greater than any conception. Im not interested in telling people what is right or wrong for whatever reason based upon whatever. I am interested in agreeing, colloquially, with people and premising feelings.

Im not going to murder someone not because I think it is wrong. But because I have no desire to murder and i think it is grotesque. Why should I need an absolute?

If happiness is elsewhere, in a world behind the scenes, which is an utter illusion (reference Freud here if dogma need be), then there is absolutely no happiness, and thus too no sadness... But we can take it further. This life is to be thrown away! Woo! Great contention!

The atheistic position does not need some transpersonal authority, which somehow is anthropomorphic, to settle the affairs of a mammalian brain. There are methods by which a person can figure out what they should or should not do which are simply much better than adhering to the rules of a bronze age mythology.

mhmmm.. and what percentage of muslim people are inbred?

Incest is not 'wrong' or 'evil,' petty moralists... It is harmful and should be avoided!