Here we go. 180 is about to clear things up and resolve a miscommunication. Let's see how he does. :) Get your score cards out.

And you can't say that we are morally valuable because we are made of meat, because the meat itself is not morally valuable absent a mind inhabiting it. — Bartricks

What about functionalism? If a mind is a lump of meat functioning in a particular way, lumps of functioning meat can be valuable without there being any immaterial objects. I'm just going with your assumptions again here. I'm not a functionalist, but you haven't adequately dealt with actual materialist theories of mind here.

1. How have you arrived at your belief that God exists? Was it after some theoretical or logical proofs on God 's existence or some personal religious experience? Or via some other routes? — Corvus

I consider myself a theist, but I doubt if people who knew my views would call me a theist.

I'm a theist because I think, on balance, some of the reports of religious experience/insight by others is likely true. There's no certainty there of course.

I think the most foolish of people are very often religious (more so than typical atheists), but I also think the ones that seem to be the most insightful are also religious, again, moreso than typical atheists. These are general impressions of course, and again there's no certainty, but they are very influential to me. I'm not willing to write off people's views by lazily saying they fear death, or it's wishful thinking, or any of the other psychological maladies that they are thoughtlessly diagnosed with, en masse.

I was influenced by a particular philosopher who pretty much persuaded me (I never met him, I just read his stuff) that some kind of theism was likely true. I was an atheist before that. I think quite a lot of what he said was likely just wrong, but much of it I find sound.

I'm a panpsychist. By itself, that is irrelevant to theism. But theism at least involves the idea that consciousness is present at the start, or even before the start of the universe if you think in those terms (and yes I know south of the south pole blah blah - I won't get into that now). So theism is, as a metaphysical position, at least involves the view that consciousness is not emergent. And panpsychism is the antithesis of emergentism in relation to consciousness. For me, this opens the door to theism, but not all of it indiscriminately. It does not follow from the fact that because atoms are conscious we therefore have to hate fags. That's nuts, obviously. It's why I don't like aligning myself with religious folks. I hate the bastards mostly. And I don't think most of them actually believe in anything in particular - they have neither insight, intellectual justification, nor any clear idea of what they believe. So I don't think most theists are actually theists at all. I don't think religious texts have much philosophical import, relevance or worth, at least from what I have seen (and I am no expert). However I think it possible they contain, in places, intuited wisdom and insight. There are babies in the bathwater that I don't want to murder, and am suspicious of indiscriminate anti-religious sentiment.

2. Why do you try to prove God in a theoretical / logical way, when already believing in God's existence?

Because I'm a philosopher by nature. I'm not a mystic, alas. I can't talk to God on my inner telephone, at least not yet. I'm not a romantic artist receiving divine inspiration, alas. I see no hand of God in the natural world, except as a result of my philosophical panpsychism. I'm a rather plodding stick-in-the-mud philosopher. And figuring out this stuff rationally is what I do, because it's the only thing I can do. I have to get inspiration and insight second hand for the most part. I don't 'just know' God, I don't think. But I do accept that some other people might.

Peirce & Dewey, Popper & Witty, for example, don't equate 'useful' with 'truth' (that's a vulgar form of pragmatism associated with William James or Richard Rorty IIRC). Metaphysical, like methodological, positions (e.g. materialism) aren't truth-apt or theoretical explanations, but are, instead, conceptual descriptions, interpretations or procedural criteria. So yeah, philosophy itself is "a very low bar" – anyone can "have" one to live by – the significance of which, however, consists in a combination of its relevant questions' rigour and probity. — 180 Proof

Any of the opinions expressed here would make a good debate subject.

Yes; but useful (self-consistent) or useless (not self-consistent) is more like it. — 180 Proof

Useful is a very low bar to clear for any position. Even self-contradictory positions might be useful from time to time. Unless you mean 'useful' in the more technical context of pragmatism.

"Is the useful, the true?" might be a good debate topic.

I challenge Wayfarer to affirm the proposition (or very close to it): "Both philosophical and scientific materialisms are fallacious" in a formal debate against either myself or someone else in opposition to the proposition.

Materialism of either sort is a position, not an argument. It can be true or false, but not valid or fallacious.

I think three options might be good, and not anonymous. 'Agree', 'disagree', and 'I don't understand this post'.

Then I promise to never like your posts. — Michael

Oh, dear. I've changed my mind. I want you to like them!

I'm not sure I want people to like my posts.

I was brought up by a devoutly Catholic mother, educated in a working class mostly immigrant Catholic grammar school and then an elite Catholic high school, served mass as an altarboy from 2nd through 12th grade, and lastly considered the priesthood as a religious studies honors student. When I was a believer I'd sincerely believed I'd believed.

However, I gave up "God" for Lent during 11th grade after acknowledging that the Bible was unbelievable (both "too good" and "too bad" to be true), that the history of its making and ecclesiastical uses was largely dishonest, corrupting, overtly political, and finally recognizing that I'd never "truly believed" after all but only that I had merely conformed. I'd discovered that I could no long defend the indefensible on the basis of believing the unbelievable. That was 41 years ago, and I've been a freethinker ever since.

NB: The classic arguments in defense of (mono)theism are among the best arguments against 'theism as such' and the few theists who are also cogent, careful, thinkers whom I've ever encountered are uncomfortably aware of this. At the end of the day, they (must) lean heavily on "faith" to "justify" their fact-free beliefs (superstitions). — 180 Proof

@180 Proof, I've been slagging off your posting style quite a bit recently. I think it obscures the points you want to make. This post, however, is an exemplar of clear transparent prose. It's still economical, but not compressed into a zip file.

Like in the last forum, it will be used as an 'I agree with that' button. Or a 'yeah you show that dickhead' button. It won't indicate quality particularly. Just how popular the things you say are.

What is the point? — SteveMinjares

Because it's a philosophy forum, and whether or not God is real is an important philosophical question.

No agriculture

I think it's getting a bit better. It's a shame Hanover picked substance dualism to defend as it's an awfully easy target. Not that 180's done a very good job of tackling it. The simple question "What's your solution to the interaction problem?" could have saved a few pages.

I'm sure you're both right. My objection is to philosophical literature generally, I was just picking on Spinoza for fun. Philosophy is usually painful to read, at least for me. Hume and Berkeley are exceptions perhaps.

Talking of Hume, his ethical writings are really good. Simple and insightful. Forget what it's called now. I'll recommend that to the op when I remember what it is.

Rather than dismiss one of the greatest works of philosophy, it would be more sensible and modest to ask the question of why a book titled "Ethics" seems not to be about ethics. Rather and assume the text is wanting, perhaps it is your own understand of the text that is wanting. — Fooloso4

There may be truckloads of inspiring ethics, cautiously and diligently arrived at by means of his painstaking philosophical method. However as they are likely to be expounded near the conclusion of the book, and no one (sane) has read that far, they remain obscure. It would be a rash gamble to invest the decades it would take to find out.

Don't whatever you do read Spinoza's Ethics. It has no ethics in it.

ignoring warnings — Baden

That's the important one IMO. A process was followed. Members are lucky there is a process at all, and even luckier there are volunteer mods to enforce it. There needn't be.

In a way this thread is an antidote to several threads started by theists on the forum seeking, perhaps duplicitously but certainly without success, positive arguments from atheists for their view. — Banno

I'd like to take this opportunity to put my position to alleviate some of my discomfort. I am a quasi-theist, I believe for philosophical reasons, but I want to distance myself from many of the other theists on this forum and in the wider world generally. Spiritually, I'm an atheist if you will. If I had to choose to spend the rest of my life stuck in a pub, I'd generally rather spend it with atheists. I agree with most of the arguments against theism, and think nearly all the arguments for it are bollocks, at least without very heavy modification. Typically (and I generalise - apologies to those civilised theists) my political and moral views tend to align with humanists, ecologists, liberals, and lefties. On this forum the people I argue with the most are those whose metaphysics and philosophy of mind I disagree with, and these also tend to be the people whose moral and political views I agree with. Banno for example, 180, street, jorndoe, all the people I find most annoying philosophically (and editorially actually). In real life, it's the moral and political views that matter. I find it intensely uncomfortable that some of the most obnoxious and ignorant attitudes tend to go along with religious belief. Sorry, there's no philosophy here. I just wanted to say that.

180 crashed another debate into the ground.

What a shit 'debate'

More generally, I'm not sure God is too bothered about dignity. You need to have pride for that don't you? Maybe They understands that people have pride, and don't want to be watched, and so in Their Mercy They don't Watch. I think we need to use capitals more for the non-binary God so as not to mock Them too much. But you need Eyes to Watch. But God has no Eyes on pain of being visible and spatio-temporally Located. Jesus could do some watching but only a few people for a short time. So for God to do some Watching, it would have to be in some other way. Oh, Theology is hard.

Is that Banno passing over in silence what cannot be spoken of? Or did he just delete a post?

For a true proposition to qualify as an item of knowledge it needs to be justified. For a true proposition to be justified is for there to be a normative reason to believe it. — Bartricks

Epistemic justification is not the same thing as moral justification, at least prima facie. You have a sort of is-ought problem here.

I dissent from most of the assumptions in the OP but you seemed to want to offer these as given which I'm happy to follow. It's fun to look at validity anyway.

Also I'm interested in how and why people select the 'omnis' that they do. I'm used to the idea that there are three: omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence. I don't normally bother with omnibenevolence as that follows from G's omnipotence anyway, although that depends on a theory of the good, namely that the good is that which is willed. Why do people, you in this case, often skip omnipresence?

Seems like equivocation on the concept of justification to me.

You wisdom is too strong for me Bartricks. It's scary.

Those who think God exists and their life has some other purpose, are self aggrandizing idiots who grossly underestimate God's power (and have warped and sick ideas about what love involves). — Bartricks

That's me!

Apparently, in India they were (are?) drowned in milk. — Apollodorus

Awfully expensive way to drown someone. What's wrong with water?

Banno's position is extreme and dogmatic.
— bert1

I don't agree. — T Clark

The reason I'm having a somewhat random whack at Banno is because his views on language and definitions prevent him talking about things that I and many others want to talk about, for example, my philosophical interest, consciousness. However it doesn't stop him writing posts anyway and messing up threads. I've tried to get him to talk about consciousness, but he insists on talking about consciousness. I tell him to shut the fuck up and stay on topic. And he says he is on topic.

When you identify a definition as "essentialist," do you mean that the definition corresponds to a natural boundary inherent in the phenomenon and not established by human consensus? — T Clark

I was trying to follow the usage in this thread, esp. from Michael. So I guess I'm thinking of something like the definition of 'bachelor' as that of an unmarried man. These are severally necessary and jointly sufficient for object X to be a bachelor. Is that a form of essentialism? Have I got this wrong? The essence of a bachelor is that it is unmarried and a man. Heaps, on the other hand, don't seem to have an essence. And if they do, it's a vague one.

I think this is different from the concept of vagueness though, although the two ideas probably track each other somewhat, I'm not sure. Have to think about it. So even 'bachelor' could be vague, as at precisely what point does someone go from being unmarried to married? "I pronounce you man and wife", but then exactly when did the word 'wife' finish being uttered? When the registrar's lungs stopped contracting? Or when the sound wave battered the eardrums of the couple? Or what? So vagueness/non vague is a different concept pair from essentialist/non-essentialist. But I've only just started thinking about it so I may have misunderstood something.

The Sorites paradox is a paradox, because one can reason from some prima-facie plausible premises to a contradiction. It's just a not a very stubborn paradox, and, correctly understood (and here I agree with Banno), leads to the important idea of vague predicates. And these resolve the paradox. Some paradoxes are tougher than others.

Where I don't agree with Banno is that all predicates are like this. Nor do I agree all philosophical problems can be solved this way. Some putative examples of non-vague terms (there aren't many, at least outside maths perhaps): less than seven, spatial, conscious.

Requests for definitional clarity are sometimes unreasonable, but sometimes they are reasonable. It depends on the context. Banno's position is extreme and dogmatic. Definitions are not all essentialist - Banno himself showed this.

I do think meaning (in any context) does always seem to be particularly about relationships. A solitary person may find it necessary to be creative in finding meaningful relationships between different parts of themselves, or themselves and their environment. [/casual opinion]

No, you've misunderstood TMF's point.

This thread is a fishing expedition. I'm seeking out those who disagree with this proposition: Science is a good thing, to see what their arguments are. — Banno

Well I disagree. I think we should have stopped at hunter gathering. We'd be way happier.

Whether a country is democratic is for the people to decide. — ltlee1

:scratches head:

When there's a decision to make, but you don't mind which option you take?

180, your posts are in code. I don't have the codec.

Okay. I await your BiV reasoning though. — 180 Proof

Scroll up

And I append it to the end my broader epistemic position because foundherenism is inherently fallibilist and focused on beliefs more so than knowledge — 180 Proof

But you explicitly said you knew you were not a BiV.