I won’t waste your time any further. — apokrisis
And, imo, this "object" conceals (its) absence. In broad strokes, I think religion (to worship) idolatrizes-fetishizes-mystifies '(the) absence' and mysticism (to meditate) denies – negates – 'whatever conceals absence' in order to "experience" absence as such whereas philosophy (to inferentially contemplate) describes – makes explicit – 'presence concealing absence' and science (to testably map-model) observes 'only fact-patterns (i.e. states-of-affairs concealing absence) in order to explain dynamics. — 180 Proof
"How" would be a scientific question (i.e. to explain empirically) instead of a philosophical question "why" (i.e. to clarify-justify conceptually). — 180 Proof
If atoms somehow have some sort of subjective life, how does it illuminate the phenomenon of consciousness simply by supposing everything has it? — Bodhy
This is the central fact you fail to engage with – the way that life and mind are indeed mechanistic. A system of informational switches regulating entropic flows in the way anyone can recognise as being alive and mindful. Or in other words, constituting an organismzombie. — apokrisis
As a panpsychist I believe that the rarity and privilege of my experiential transformation from typical matter into a human is literally unimaginable. In fact, I think my miraculous existential fortune should be justified by something other than "it just is that way". My question is what you think this justification might possibly be, or why you think "it just is that way" suffices. — Dogbert
Moral principles
As far as I can see, all formal moral philosophies, and certainly any philosophy that specifies how other people should behave, is not moral at all, or even really a philosophy. It’s a program of social control - coercive rules a society establishes to manage disruptive or inconvenient behavior — T Clark
Why not simply follow the given manuals and act righteously? — ssu
Scientists and scientifically literate persons do not misuse (misinterpret) physical laws that way – and obviously, bert, you're neither a scientist nor scientifically literate if you believe nature's regularities / structures are "inexplicable" (akin to supernatural mysteries ... miracles, woo-of-the-gaps, etc). — 180 Proof
Can anyone prove a god, I enjoy debates and wish to see the arguments posed in favour of the existence of a god. — CallMeDirac
So, again, no proof, even if perfect would change a thing. — Sam26
What question is not begged (is not fallaciously answered) by "a mystery"? None. — 180 Proof
Why would you expect this? — Dfpolis
It's casual at it's own lever of abstraction. — flannel jesus
I really do think that enormous confusion is caused in many areas — not just consciousness, but free will and even more purely physical phenomena — by the simple mistake of starting sentences in one language or layer of description (“I thought about summoning up the will power to resist that extra slice of pizza…”) but then ending them in a completely different vocabulary (“… but my atoms obeyed the laws of the Standard Model, so what could I do?”) — Sean Carroll
It doesn't have to be either/or. — flannel jesus
Suppose miraculously I was able to produce an accurate account of every detail of the evolutionary path leading to humans. Would it then be unreasonable to conclude with, "So that's just the way evolution went?"
BTW, Do you think Chalmers is an evolution skeptic? — wonderer1
So what reason do we have to think human behavior in general could be as it is without consciousness? — wonderer1
If some observation corresponds to some Star Wars-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Jediism is true. — 180 Proof
A pointless comment. — Janus
When we say "transcendence", don't we usually mean something metaphysical like 'X transcends, or is beyond, Y' (e.g. ineffable, inexplicable, unconditional, immaterial, disembodied, etc)? This differs from "transcendental" which denotes 'anterior conditions which make X epistemically possible' (Kant, Husserl). I usually can't tell from their posts what most members like Wayfarer or @Constance intelligibly mean by either of these terms. — 180 Proof
With apologists it always comes down to "you must not understand" if you disagree with them and/or present arguments they can't cope with. Also, they argue from the mindset of wanting something to be true and ignoring anything that doesn't confirm their wishes, rather than seeking to discover the truth with an unbiased disposition. — Janus
My thinking is this: Religion rises out of the radical ethical indeterminacy of our existence. This simply means that we are thrown into a world of ethical issues that, in the most basic analysis, are not resolvable. Yet they insist on resolution with the same apodicticity as logical coercivity. Meaning, just as one cannot but agree with something like modus ponens or the principle of identity in terms of the pure logicality of their intuitive insistence, so one cannot resist the moral insistence of moral redemption. This latter is the essence of religion, and I further claim that in proving such a thing, I am giving the world and our existence in it exactly the metaphysical satisfaction is seeks. — Constance
(1) Evidence is a correspondence between some proposition and some observation of reality.
(2) If some observation corresponds to some Bible-specific proposition, then it is evidence that Christianity is true.
(3) If praying induces experiences for a biological reason, then prayer-induced experiences are not observations of reality but hallucinations.
(4) Prayer induces experiences for a non-biological reason, therefore prayer-induced experiences are observations of reality.
(5) There are prayer-induced experiences of observations that correspond to Bible-specific propositions, therefore they are evidence Christianity is true. — Hallucinogen