They're fully responsible for their own actions, including going to war and following orders. — S

care to explain?

But it's certainly not lawless, is it? Humans came up with a huge amount of "martial law", from warriors' codes of honour to the Geneva Conventions... — WerMaat

The UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) would like a word with you. — Terrapin Station

War is not a complete state of lawlessness — god must be atheist

Thank you for pointing that out, apologies for the mistake there.

May I ask to each of you; regardless of being punished for violating a law, do they still deserve to be entitled respect? Knowing that, these people participated into war in full bravery and patriotism, willing to give out their lives for the sake of what they believe in.

Although their moral responsibility might be grounded upon war-based laws, should they be respected for fighting for what they see as good?

And from my meager understanding of the UCMJ, is this a globally-agreed code? Because throughout wars of enormous scopes, violation of these laws were prevalent — from torture and mass-killings of citizens. In addition, does punishment still occur despite the lack of evidence, conclusive or not?

These questions all boil down to one main inquiry; do soldiers, as in every soldier, deserve respect? I established a discussion on morality, justice, and identity as I believe they contribute to the entitlement of all soldiers.

Accidental as in attributes that are only sufficient by definition. Not literal accidents. And as Maimonides portrays, approximation by worldly evidence cannot define godly existences - so is essence a significant thing for a god?

For both you're not really teaching yourself - you're comprehending information that is provided to you. The challenge of it only depends on the learning capacity of a person; some learn by picture and some by listening.

I don't see how this is hard.

Inferring to probabilities also proves that we do not really have justifiable evidence of possibility. If everything is so unpredictable, that even potentials of incomprehensibly small chances can occur or reoccur, then inductive reasoning is illogical.

From A comes B, but they are conjoined together in mutual inclusiveness, they're constantly conjoined together. Whenever we encounter A, B must be present. Likewise, the statement is in equal value to saying 'when we find B, A must be present'. From there, we are fumbled with a weak form of necessity. Consequently, inductive reason becomes illogical but obviously that is not the case - however, if things are beyond our finite grasp; like the universe, infinity or God, inductive reason cannot define a logical stance towards these sorts of things.

So things that are beyond our contingent, finite grasp are measured by possibility; or epistemic justification. They cannot be measured by inductive reasoning.

As understood by many people, value or merit evaluates and decides the superiority of something, and when triangleness or orange-juiceness is paramount in the situation, they are more valuable. As opposed to the whole that is most certainly, more valuable in number,

The argued whole, as I see it, became part of the portion rather than the primitive; portion exiting the whole. Water, as of different substance, became part of a partially different substance, of which is the portion. When the value of the whole merges in its oneness with ironically a portion, the concepts of value towards superiority is set aside. The whole argument collapses, In my opinion at least. If the whole is added to a: different, deceptive, unambiguous substance, the whole becomes a portion as well - likewise the original portion. Both added together, is the whole.

a more advanced race of people — Jonmel

Where would this race of people reside?

Self-actualization as in Jesus or Jann Arden, like in how to be successful class in high school? Passion is a drive toward something, a compulsion — whollyrolling

Maslow's theory of Self-actualization. Perhaps you've heard of?

Love isn't an emotion, it's a biological commitment to mating for life. It might raise emotions within us, but it's based on something primal. — whollyrolling

Also explain self-actualization or doing something you're passionate about, isn't that love?

If the provided answer was not enough perhaps the thought experiment 'Mary's room' will give more meaning?

If our attention, or awareness, in a moment is focused on something that isn't love then how can we claim to be in love? — Edward

I think it's more of a linguistic challenge than a problem of certainty in emotion. We are always in love; from family, friends, and self-actualizing passions. The question 'are you in love?' in our contemporary society inclines more to asking if you're in a relationship, as oppose to having the capacity to feel love.

Love, is more of an action than a method of abstract status - like happiness or anger. This disparity also contributes to this problem more being linguistically, rather than of certainty.

Atheism does not imply meaninglessness, because otherwise they would have no moral standpoint or moral ontology. Faith in God, exemplifies evidence, but that's not to say God is arbitrarily selective or dismissive to the unevangelized. Our moral encompassing or decisiveness I personally believe, is predated by God. The origins and backgrounds for moral ontology has a sound reason that reinforces the argument for the existence of God. Provided, if moral objectivity exists.

Theism isn't arrogant in a way that we believe our lives are far much of modesty and complacence because of God, again that God is unknowable. He may have accidental semantic attributes, but not intrinsic-essential; or to our degree of knowledge, at least.

If life is truly meaningless, then happiness would be void in its oneness - advancements, failure, or self-actualization do not matter in the form of existence. Personally, I think that's untrue.

Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise. — S

I just thought that was sarcasm.

So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. — Christoffer

The revolutionizing comprehension of logic over the years to innovate arguments for the existence of God, I would not say were disproved. The arguments I am trying to say are: The cosmological, teleological, and moral ground arguments. Rather than disproving the argument in its entirety, the probabilities are more to be addressed than the idea implied. And repeated, I haven't seen any argument to disprove these.

And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. — Christoffer

As a theist, consistency is paramount to the justification of my belief. At least one, small inconsistency breaks theism as an already precarious belief. I always attempt to be consistent in every meticulous section of argument, and with that determination for theism in general I think theism should, as you mention, 'get in the game' for the table of philosophy. Lastly, I think scrutiny should not have to involve satire - although satire is ubiquitous to every known topic, in a forum like this is where I'd least expect it.

To conclude, Theism, as I presume we could all agree to, is a very difficult belief to justify. Clearing out things, faith is not wishful thinking or delusion, because faith is belief in the unknown - which explicitly, has nothing to do with selectively changing the principles of the existence of God for our preferences. Faith is an ideological connection to God, not believing in a deity because it makes us feel better or benefits us altogether.

Sorry for the late reply.

One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. — S

I apologize and I admit my mistake. Please allow me to clarify.

That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. — S

The supporting arguments behind that, were like that of an attack to theism. Theism and faith is not wishful thinking, or delusion. Because faith is belief in the unknown, we don't suppose a belief because it is in our favor of preference, but to rely on the evidence that we are provided with, which links back to Pascal. Altogether this has nothing to do with Atheism not being able to understand the evidence, but because Theism epitomizes the evidence.

It was more of, in my perspective, theism being frowned upon in the table of philosophy, and when that problem is addressed, it is then modified to actually having to be scrutinized.

Me using the words egocentric, arrogant and whatnot, were not to you - but to the applications of satire into argument. Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe?

Sorry for the late reply.

Is this going to get a proper response or not? You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. — S

ok...

I remember adding an argument of Anselm? and no, just because two arguments are used to support each other does not mean I am being selectively biased, they both agree with each other and by far is logically consistent, so I do not see how that is wrong — unless of course, you'd care to explain to me how that's the case.

Yet you have the nerve to suggest that you're in pursuit of the truth. Don't you think that it's immoral to lie? — S

I am sorry if that's the case. But what I am saying is that; I am providing arguments for the existence of God, and if anyone is not trying to address the errors and defectives in them, no offense, but I think it's you.

You changed the subject to a different argument, and instead of addressing the logical problem, you just saw it as a personal attack and responded in kind. And then when I question why you responded in this way, instead of responding properly, I just get more personal attacks. — S

I assumed you started to evaluate theism as an affirmed fallacy in every logical way possible, and these are not ad hominem fallacies, I only point out the emotions that are demonstrated without the addressing of the defectives of my arguments.

And properly dealing with scrutiny? — S

Your confidence seems to just piss people off and at the same time amuse them. It's amazing.

No it doesn't, and I don't. — S

There you are. Classic, egocentric, self-centered, arrogant @S.

The existence of God has not yet been affirmed and you acknowledge it. I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional.

Theism isn't treated as a fallacy, the logic of many arguments by theists are not logical or rational. The inability to see the flaws in reasoning, the cognitive biases, the fallacies when trying to prove the existence of God, the existence of the supernatural etc. is so high within theism compared to atheism that it should be a red flag towards theists to "get in the game" instead of accepting flawed reasoning. Most of the time, basic philosophical methods are abandoned in favor of evangelism. In philosophical terms, that kind of reasoning does not deserve to be respected. Philosophy needs harder scrutiny for the arguments, which seems more acceptable to atheists than theists. — Christoffer

The scrutiny was not applied to my arguments presented, well, at least I think so. Everyone just started to be baffled and attack my claim that theism, is and deserves to be in the table of philosophy. And my arguments have nothing to do with evangelisation, I don't want to evangelise any of you. But the pursuit of truth requires argument, and as far as I know that is all I am providing.

To add, I think theism is just moved by perspectives that acclaim labeling us as delusional, or beliefs being unjustified - and I will expect people to affirm that into its as-a-matter-of-factness.

Do you appreciate the difference between “Philosophy of Religion” and “Theology”? Don’t pull the wool over your own eyes, this is a philosophy forum so to assume authority of theism here is a no starter, sorry.

Philosophy of Science is the analysis of religion without the presumption of belief in any said ‘god’. Atheism was a term used by the religious to sully someone’s name; funny thing is people started to take it more and more as a compliment :) — I like sushi

I understand the difference between philosophy of religion and Theology, hence why my arguments are always initiated with or acknowledged that God is a presupposition. And no, I did not assert Authority - at all, I just addressed that theism, must at least be respected as a belief and I don't think it should be neglected in the table of Philosophy.

God created the universe. It is impossible to create anything infinite (because you would never finish doing so) so the universe must be finite. — Devans99

Creation for God, who has infinite resources and time to his disposal, doesn't have to be 'I add this, on top of that this, and this'. The universe can be in a form of infinity with its origins being created collectively; 'You are infinite'. Infinity would not have a degree of size either, so not only would you not finish creating it, you would also not finish destroying it.

Aquinas, a christian and an Aristotelian, proposed that the universe had a definitive origin, but God have made it in someway that it is infinite.

If God is somehow non-material then possibly he could have some form of 'metaphysical infinity' but it seems unlikely; it seems counter to common sense. — Devans99

The presupposition that the universe is created, includes the supposition that God does exists. His ability to have created a physical world, justifies his constant ability to intertwine with contingent existences. If he is non-material and pure mind, that does not imply he cannot create infinite metaphysical resources.

My last post relies on a strict definition of division. It should actually be possible to take a finite part of an infinite whole... sorry. — Devans99

All good :grin: :up:

I am looking forward to seeing defectives in what I argue for.

So Jesus is not infinite and Jesus is a part of God. That means God cannot be infinite (because ∞ / 2 = ∞; IE any division of infinity is itself infinity). That or the whole concept of infinity is wrong. — Devans99

Infinity in real life I would not think applies to Mathematical concept. Infinity metaphysically would include infinite resources and infinite time, from those resources and time, substances and amount can be taken off that, hence Jesus is a portion. The earth is a portion. We can even get complicated - the universe, of which is infinite, is a portion, but an ever-growing portion.

Although I do understand, that infinite concept mathematically is questionable, given that if infinity can be added, can it also be constantly subtracted? However, in a metaphysical sense, resources are concrete - thus provided material, like Jesus and the universe, are portions.

The defective in this is I am begging the question, I presuppose the universe is infinite. To add, there is also too many presuppositions. But my point is, infinity in mathematics is distinct from metaphysical infinity. Provided that what we know of God is approximate, he is undefinable essentially. God I would say, also has accidental attributes, like he created the universe.

The question then arises how did an infinite Jesus then fit in a finite sized human body? — Devans99

Because Jesus was not infinite, with his death being the evidence. Jesus as an emanate of God in human form, will consist of humanly, inevitable flaws like anger and sin. But Jesus as human, with the holy spirit dwelling inside him, will also have a portion of Divine Authority - thus having abilities of banishing evil, with an example as it follows;

Matthew 8:28-34 - "When he arrived at the other side in the region of the Gadarenes, two demon-possessed men coming from the tombs met him. They were so violent that no one could pass that way. 'What do you want with us, Son of God?' they shouted. 'Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?' Some distance from them a large herd of pigs was feeding. The demons begged Jesus, 'If you drive us out, send us into the herd of pigs.' He said to them, 'Go!' So they came out and went into the pigs, and the whole herd rushed down the steep bank into the lake and died in the water. Those tending the pigs ran off, went into the town and reported all this, including what had happened to the demon-possessed men. Then the whole town went out to meet Jesus. And when they saw him, they pleaded with him to leave their region."

Edit: His portion of Divine Authority is also reinforced with the capability to permit miracles, forgive sin, and apply healing.

Ha, that's funny. That poor excuse of an argument could be used for practically anything, so it falls flat on it's face. — S

Yes, well, no. Anselm's argument, that causes isolation between theists, forms the foundation of necessary and contingent beings. Somethings apply to necessity, and some to contingency, so the argument as you label 'excuse', is not much practically for anything.

It's clear to me that the Flying Spaghetti Monster exists, and if you were only willing to believe, then it would be clear to you, too. And anyone who doesn't believe as I do just doesn't understand, given the vagueness of the evidence. — S

You and I know that, that is only satire to taint theism, so even your own mind would concede total faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster with meatballs - so I would not think it applies to evidence from belief. Moreover, the history of the made deity can be traced back to our contemporary society, christian theism falls exponentially further than that.

Theism being looked upon as a fallacy, and treated with no respect is just egocentric and elitist.

So Jesus is a 'portion' of God rather than the whole of God. So Jesus is not a faithful copy of God - the part is not equal to the whole. By creating Jesus, God has subdivided himself, rather than created a copy of himself. — Devans99

Jesus is a portion in a way that he is separated by the label 'God the Son', and likewise God is 'God the Father', his human emanate differs from an impeccable God, like Jesus atoning to sin. The creation of Jesus does not require division, for infinity cannot be divided (At least I think so).

That says more than what you are saying, but each religion further defines "God" according to their traditions. — Noah Te Stroete

I think it is a fair point to make that if the universe was not created by a transcendent being, then there is no transcendent being. For the origins are only natural phenomena, not dogmatic history.

Omnipotence - Could God create a copy of himself? If he did create a copy of himself, he would no longer be omni-potent, so we can conclude God is effectively not omni-potent. — Devans99

Yes he can, but in a way he already did. He created Jesus, which emanates from himself as a piece of him with the holy-spirit dwelling inside him. God creates a portion of himself to represent his wholeness, emanating from him, he is the total balance of creation. Although it is not the primitive definition which what humans would normally hold unto.

Omniscience - To know everything about one’s self requires memory storage larger than one’s self so it is not possible to even know everything even about one’s self. — Devans99

The semantics in this is confusing me. I am sorry.

The best answer I can offer though, however, is that God predates knowledge and logic (we had this discussion before). The void non-existence of something cannot even exist, that nothingness is nothing. From there, God as an omniscient being would have to withdraw from learning - and from there, knowledge as an infinite is incomprehensible when what God's capacity to store knowledge is beyond natural capability.

Omnibenevolent - This requires infallibility which in turn requires perfect information (omniscience) before making decisions. — Devans99

Analyzing your points, I think it is clarified that one supports the other. I hope I have satisfied you.

There is no evidence to suggest the first cause is the God of any of the conventional religions though nor is there evidence to support the characteristics of God assigned by conventional religion — Devans99

Likewise, there is also no evidence to prove otherwise?

By all accounts I'm a reductive physicalist. I call it phenomena. — Terrapin Station

Phenomena, by what I would know, is an unexplained occurrence. And neuro-scientists from around the world have proposed research findings that our thoughts are maneuvered and fueled by our daily experiences and partly of our genetic material. They have deconstructed and made that process to detail, henceforth reaching a conclusion where it is explained. Meanwhile, the mind is a transcendent substance external to our physical states, and therefore unknowable — to this point of time at least. So, some would assume that the mind is beyond the brain; that there is disparity between the two substances, which is for a dualist point of view.

I don't understand how it must be labelled 'phenomena'.

The problem of evidence is a problem already acknowledged by the God-Existence debate. It's nothing new.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand.

Now what that argues is that — there is more to comprehensive reality than what meets the eye.

There you go, You have a dog! But most importantly, is that the sperm cell carries with it the genes of your past dog (I am so sorry for your loss), but the point is that, comes with this huge step in Biological Science, is a question of morals. — Athen Goh

The defective in there is that identity would not be exactly the same. The memory theory, by British Empiricist and Philosopher John Locke, would not apply to this. Genetic material may be copied, but is the dog the same dog as before? That's questionable.

So for your answer, whether immortality would be prevalent to us contingent beings, we will still be labelled contingent beings. That is of course, if the God-existence problem will ever be decided. But such remarkably, being a god is more than just possessing supernatural abilities or immortality - it's having the capacity to uphold divine authority, and to do that for what a presupposed god has provided for us, is not so much of 'Divine Authority'.

The gradual growth of knowledge and technology in this generation does not and never will reach Divine Authority. Supported with the presupposition that God, exists.

Im usually sceptical to theories thike that, — Anirudh Sharma

Care to elucidate the skepticism?

If people didn't have such thick skulls, we would be able to hear each other's mental voice very clearly. — Bitter Crank

:lol:

i mean we haven't yet worked out the working of the "mind", so how do you upload it and expect a mind to be uploaded. In the future, maybe if we figure out how it all works, it might be possible. — Anirudh Sharma

Contemporary Philosopher and Mentalist ColinMcginn argued for what he calls 'Mysterianism' — Which states the Physicalism will never be proven and the Mental states cannot be comprehensive to our Mental Capacity.

But you said "There's no such thing as mind." There is if we're saying there are thoughts, awareness and illusions. Those are mental phenomena. — Terrapin Station

A Reductive Physicalist view upon it would not call it phenomena. For the reasons for thinking can be justified and reinforced with reactions in the brain; hence why it is physical.

I am having a few difficulties to choose a side. I think it will all just remain unsolved.

Galatians 3:28

"There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus."

The bible is a compilation of millions of paradoxes and reflections. Only articulate, passionate acceptance of it can grant you understanding; various interpretations are the reason for discord regarding the ecclesiastical truth value of Christian Theology. Interpreting it in its entirety is the only way to understand the bible's objectivity and explicit implicature — and only few can do so.

God also gave us the ability to know what is good, to encompass moral decisiveness. Subsequently, we understand to change moral dogmas by the means of tolerance and inclusion. As God granted us consciousness, it tells us what is good or not, wherein contingent idealism blinds our intrinsic viewpoints of objective morality as oppose to Necessary Idealism.

In conclusion, I think it is erroneous to represent the dogmas and laws of biblical Christianity with only a substrata that conveys a particular situation. The bible is given to you as a whole, not by verse.

As a theist, I believe so.

Who was indubitably wrong? You are contradicting yourself. How is "existing" and "being wrong" mutually exclusive? How would you know that someone else is wrong? What does it mean to be "wrong"? — Harry Hindu

Ah, mistaken for our original argument start to attack a different statement, cool.

Descartes was wrong to find certainty in his existence only for the reason of his capability to think. Stop forcing comparisons to two things that I did not deem similar.

How do fictional characters come into existence? — Harry Hindu

Proof you don't understand. Fictional characters do exist, but in a way that they are absistent beings. You argued that things with a form of causality to our metaphysical reality do exists. Fictional things teach us how to live life, in very indirect forms of causality. If anyone's contradicting themselves, that's you.

Furthermore, let's return to our initial argument.

Using the term, "universe" the way you do is incoherent and more artful rather than accurate. — Harry Hindu

Which I think is absurd because there was no comparison made with these two, as you label, 'universes'. It is to arrange, the differences of numbers and fictional characters - their limitations to metaphysical existence. As I mentioned, it is not to exploit reality; but to acknowledge existence in sorts where metaphysical existence is not a prerequisite.

Calling it incoherent without understanding it is ironic.

Numbers are processed by computers and can be processed by other animals. A number is an arbitrary symbol that refers to the sum of members in a category. This is what the symbols mean for humans because that is what most humans have learned to associate these scribbles and sounds with. Other animals can see and hear these scribbles and sounds and learn to associate anything with them. Animals learn to go where they have found more abundant food in the past. Computers can be programmed to interpret numbers in incalculable ways. The CPU in your computer is a super-powered calculator. — Harry Hindu

Is that definition mutually exclusive to Numbers having a causality to our metaphysical reality? I am sorry, but I don't think you understand what I am trying to imply. There was no comparison to the system of numbers and fictional virtue as distinct 'universes', but only to convey that they have an interstice of causality towards our metaphysical reality. And by your definition, it appears that you elucidated the causality of numbers towards our known reality.

The 'universe' analogy, as you labelled incoherent, is not to exploit reality — and therefore make world salad. It is to acknowledge reality, for if this was to be incoherent; it would not be accepted in our contemporary society of philosophy.

It is quite ironic to deem my reflective opinions incoherent, all for the reason of misunderstanding it.

Certainty is absolute truth. I agree, Descartes is indubitably wrong when he claims he is certain about his existence. However, saying;

"I think, therefore I might be". — whollyrolling

worsens the already difficult pursuit of individual certainty. In addition, evaluating something that is meant to describe your essence does not solve the existence of fictional characters, at least I think so.