Nothingness (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy)
Over 12,000 words. Much ado about nutn' it would seem.

Nothing (Wikipedia)
Just under 2,000 words.

An Essay on Nothing (Sophia Gottfried, Philosophy Now)
Just over 1,000 words. You'd think there wasn't much to talk about, but I guess there is.

, in analogy, driving ≠ the car, walking ≠ the legs, ...
Sure, the car and the legs are involved, but there's a category difference.
Mentioned observations (coherently) suggest similar categories where mind and body are concerned.

So it's everything all the way down? — Punshhh

There's something other than everything...? Odd. :)

No known phenomenon has ever been best explained by the gods or supernatural magic — could literally be raised to explain anything and therefore explains nothing, not itself explicable, cannot readily be exemplified (verified), does not derive anything differentiable in particular, has consistently been falsified in the past — literally a non-explanation.
The gods are similar to things we know aren't real and unlike things we know are real; no gods are unambiguously detected by unbiased observers; gods take idealized forms that the person can conceive and hold attitudes and values the believer projects into them.
Every posited god that has things of utmost importance to tell all mankind (perhaps like worship, perhaps the importance of whichever religious scriptures) has failed (not almighty) or is deceptive (not omnibenevolent).
But, hey, ...

Do we always strand on "the unknowable", "the ineffable" or some such (by way of Sagan's procedure)?

:D

There is no question that 2+2=4 — Metaphysician Undercover

"2+2=4" ⇔ 2+2=4

∎

, I'm going by observations, the rest are just suggestions.
Without the head (or body), no mind occurs, mind seems localized to head/body.
Yet, mind is not (identical to) the head, which you still have while unconsciousness; say, mind isn't like an object with mass and width and height.
So, perhaps mind is something body can sometimes do, if you will, and you (as a person) are the synthesis, what you do and what you do it with?
This, at least, is fairly consistent/coherent/cogent, and I wouldn't conflate spatial objects and temporal processes (mentioned category mistake).
"Some lose their mind, without losing their head." ;)

Maybe, ?

Observations suggest that your head is more clearly spatial, and mind more clearly temporal.

• spatial object-like body: left to right, top to bottom, front to back, locatable, inertial/movable (conservation)
• temporal process-like mind: comes and goes, starts and ends, interruptible, occurs, un/consciousness, anesthetic, dementia, coma (obviously there aren't anyone describing what unconsciousness is like)

Objectifying mind could be a category mistake.
(None of which suggests "supernatural magic" or whatever of course.)

Of course not. — Frank Apisa

What about, say, The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)? Solipsism? Dream thought experiments? Intangible hobs that can control the weather? (Heck, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings?)

With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple back-pedal-procedure by which existential claims can be (counter)evidence-immunized. Seems rife in religious apologetics, reducing their epistemics to being on par with the above, despite their continuous insistence on existential claims.

It takes ... something to unabatedly continue declaring such claims true. (And thoroughly declaring agnosticism in such matters doesn't seem quite right.)

Howcome, ?
If someone wants to talk, only to refuse to tell about what, then what are they wanting to talk about anyway? Be it Shiva, "the greatest", The Triune, the universe (or a supposed sentient creator thereof), their feelings, that over there (showing), "the great unknown" (or "unknowable" perhaps), ghosts of imagined entities, ..., whatever.
Might as well predicate sufficiently, or all bets are off, everyone might head off in whatever directions. Before someone starts talking about their gods, these discussions don't come up in the first place.
Granted, sometimes the subject is contextually implicit in the situation, like during a prayer session over at the mosque.
(Incidentally, a Shaivist mystic once scorned me for using the word "God" when referring to the Biblical Yahweh; so I learned to be a bit more respectful with word-use.)
My suggestion earlier round up three possibilities: define, show, go by common usage (coinciding somewhat/partially with your comment). Maybe there are others?

Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter — Frank Apisa

Both. And...

dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used — Frank Apisa

I'm interested in what you mean by "define." — Frank Apisa

I suppose, defining x could be predicating x that x is (uniquely) identifiable?
Otherwise, the only option may be to show x (which would be existential proof at least).
In the case here, x is used in so many ways as to become contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever.

The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... . — 3017amen

Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea.
(And, if anything, he personally preferred the label religious nonbeliever or agnostic about himself, possibly aligned with Spinoza, and with a poetic-mystic reverence for a variety of religious texts.)
Hijacking cherry-picked quotes is misrepresenting him for the occasion, moreso if you're dishing out accusations left-and-right here.

Or maybe one can simply refrain from spitting on others. — NOS4A2

Won't do. Nothing new.

public health officials need to weigh the pros and cons — NOS4A2

Sure, we already know, including your re-response to Banno. And, say, it's not like some to whom wearing such head gear would be detrimental are both being forced to go out in public and wear detrimental head gear, rather protecting them is of importance here. Get real. Don't be such a childish contrarian. :) Why wouldn't you want to protect when it's so simple and cheap, and we've already had people preventably suffering and dying?

Incidentally, we just a worker come by, that respectfully/considerately was wearing head gear (per public recommendation). (y)

So, ? Don't stop there, as if that's the be-all-end-all conclusion.

As posted by :

• There is no shortage of mechanistic evidence and observational studies that affirmed the benefits of wearing a face mask in the community, which should drive urgent public health policy while we await the results of further research. — Universal masking for COVID-19: evidence, ethics and recommendations

Inconsistent messages from the experts and policy makers about the rationale for the recommendation has led to confusion in the community. — Universal masking for COVID-19: evidence, ethics and recommendations

Notice the ethics part as well.

, I wouldn't call 180 Proof clueless.

not very friendly — Athena

I'll just suggest that 3017amen's passive-aggressive comments and general tone sets an attitude in the thread.

_{(Then there's tactically shifting the burden of proof; implicitly (i.e. in a hidden fashion) challenge others with the diallelus (or similar, other philosophical conundrums may also take the role), then go "Aha, God"; go for lengthy complex (occasionally obscure) metaphysicalizing, then go "Aha" when others don't take the bait; a bit of intimidation and loaded/exaggerated/condescending verbiage here and there can also help to give an impression of a secure position; ...)}

Sometimes commenters call for angry responses. *shrug* Nothing new I guess, just check some of the threads touching on contemporary politics for example. :)

"mathematical object", or "Platonic ideal" — Metaphysician Undercover

Abstract quantities (is the phrase)

You guys still chatting about whether 2 + 2 = 4 or 2 + 2 ≠ 4 ? :D
Maybe putting it to a vote could be interesting — in The Lounge, though.
Typing 2+2 and 4-2 into a pocket calculator could be an accompanying exercise.

Not entirely. God can be known as a person. That is not total knowledge of God, it is an aspect of God that God wants the individual to understand. — EnPassant

Not quite what I meant, apologies for being unclear. You're apparently referring to whatever you (claim to) know, i.e. epistemic, whereas (I think) was referring to the truth of the matter, so more ontological. In other words, by your claim, the mere existence of this God of yours is entirely independent of any/all of us and our beliefs, interpretations, daily lives, etc, right? Whatever we may or may not believe has no bearing on the mere existence of your God (according to your claim)?

I know a few persons, presumably you do as well. You also claim to know a person you label God. Would this be Knowing by Acquaintance?
The Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy article also lists Knowledge-That, Knowledge-Wh, and Knowing-How, by the way.
Offhand, I'll venture to guess "no", at least not in any way that lends itself to answer ...

how might we differentiate whether (fictional) characters, (imaginary) beings, (hallucinatory) claims are real or not?

... like most other acquaintance. (Also check here and here.)

This was a question, not an assertion, or an assumption. Care to answer it? — Punshhh

Yet there is an assertion implicit in the question, "God", which I've inquired about for a bit now.

Here are some more word tricks, FYI:
• Have you stopped beating your spouse? (either way suggests you've been beating them)
• Is the king of France bald or not? (either way suggests there is a king of France)
Implicit presuppositional failure. ⚡

(You could at least have posted "God is the all-creator, hence the answer to my question follows.") ;)

Anyways, what exactly are you asking, then, if not about "life, the universe, and everything"? (I'll assume responding "my parents" will trigger a number of other questions, diallelus style.)

You miss a relevant point — it's not about whatever I don't know, it's about the claims of those that pretend they do, without which a good lot such discussions wouldn't have come about in the first place.

how might we differentiate whether (fictional) characters, (imaginary) beings, (hallucinatory) claims are real or not?

"Evidence for" is subjective. It is how we interpret the evidence. — EnPassant

Yet the claim is that this God of yours exists entirely independently of us and our interpretations, yes?
Incidentally, also mentioned something about this (reality and such).
Our interpretations are the adjustable parts.
Mentioned something about how we typically differentiate a few times by now. How might we differentiate?

If you cannot differentiate whether, say, Shiva or Yahweh are fictional or real, then why insist (and preach indoctrinate proselytize) that they're real in the first place? (If pressed, I might take this a step further, and say that some such activities converge on fraud or deception.)

Regarding the evidence, how does one distinguish evidence from that which is not evidence? — Punshhh

Evidence could be anything. You show, we take a look. (And we may also try to differentiate.)

As I said to Enai De A Lucil, the fact that I exist is evidence of the existence of God. — Punshhh

Evidence of ... what exactly?

How could I possibly exist without God bringing me into existence? — Punshhh

http://encyclopedia.kids.net.au/page/lo/Logical_fallacy___Lack_of_imagination

(y)

The CDC (US) concurs.

About Cloth Face Coverings
CDC; June 28, 2020

Poll: Who always wears a mask in public—and who doesn't?
National Geographic; July 10, 2020

This is the US only.

Seems the most pronounced differences correlate with political sentiments.
The Community part could be explained by "density" of people.

As an aside, my personal take is that it's respectful/considerate to wear such head gear in public to protect others (well, depending on the situation I suppose). After all, people have preventably suffered and died; it's not like it's difficult or detrimental to do or anything. Actually, it's moral.

This is a weak argument, it relies on God being necessarily defined by the person claiming his existence. Philosophy would need to go deeper than what people claim to know through the use of their intellect. † — Punshhh

Yet your response goes ahead and presupposes "Him" anyway. :confused: Presupposition does not make it so (and is not particularly philosophical in this context). This is what you'd have to show in the first place.

Regardless of what people say, be they theists, or atheists, the reality on the ground is not altered. So philosophy is required to look beyond these arguments and consider reality instead. — Punshhh

Using intellect? † Let's also go by evidence. (y)

Anyway, how might we differentiate whether (fictional) characters, (imaginary) beings, (hallucinatory) claims are real or not?
Or maybe reality is what you meant by "Him" "God", then? Or maybe we're talking the unknown, personified? That's all fine (except personified); I'd just use terms with less baggage.
Should we go by diluted (watered down) phrases, that tells us roughly nothing in this respect, and are put together in such a manner that they could mean more or less anything, avoiding means to differentiate?

@Wayfarer promotes Biblical stories of miracles only to relegate Yahweh as being an archetype (no particular argument given), and without having attempted to differentiate fictional and real in the first place. So, these supposed super-beings continue to be removed from sight if you will, evading attempts to differentiate, yet continue to be claimed real in the same breath, just like ghosts of imagined entities, existentially dependent upon the minds of us.

If a giant voice would emerge from nowhere saying: [...] — EricH

Grant me "divine superpowers" for a couple days, and I might just be convinced.
Evan Baxter SceneBruce Almighty (2m:22s youtube)
(The fun I'd have...) :D

'Rational warrant' and 'empirical evidence' are different things. Empirical evidence, as construed by modern naturalism, starts, as a matter of principle, by excluding consideration of anything beyond the natural domain, and then demands evidence to the contrary, having already made the in-principle commitment not to consider it. — Wayfarer

The scientific methodologies do not inherently (heck, you could launch examinations of "supernatural magic" if there was much to examine).
They're just self-critical, seeking to self-error-correct, minimize bias, falsify, all that.
And it so happens that, say, Sagan's garage dragon, fictional characters, imaginary beings, hallucinatory claims, etc, tend to be discounted as a consequence. And why wouldn't they anyway? Mental attempts to populate the world with such ... stuff doesn't make it so.
If you cannot differentiate whether, say, Shiva or Yahweh are fictional or real, then why insist (and preach indoctrinate proselytize) that they're real in the first place? (If pressed, I might take this a step further, and say that some such activities converge on fraud or deception.)

, you're not really responding to my comment. Oh well.

Well, 'God' may be an 'invisible garden fairy' to you, but that might only be a reflection on your belief system. — Wayfarer

*whooosh* ?

what would empirical evidence for a transcendent being comprise? — Wayfarer

What would evidence for invisible garden fairies look like? Sagan's garage dragon? Fictional characters? Perhaps more pertinently, how would you differentiate?

The point is, the absence of empirical evidence for a transcendent being says precisely nothing beyond the obvious statement that empiricism itself has certain criteria which purported transcendent beings will invariably fail to meet. — Wayfarer

And thus things ranging among fictional characters, imaginary beings, hallucinations, what-have-you, come to life. Especially in the minds of humans. What would prompt insisting on their existence in the first place?

So our beliefs are determined by evidence? If not, then what determines what you believe? If I asked you why you believe in something, wouldn't you provide me reasons for what you believe, and those reasons would determine what you believe, no? — Harry Hindu

In general? Who knows. Someone may or may not become convinced of this or that due to some evidence, and change their minds later. Formation of belief is hardly some trivial well-understood thing. And sometimes this or that is wrong, other times (hopefully) right.

OK, so the evidence as I see it, indicates that rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not. It appears to me that mosquitoes are not deterministic either. Nor do plants appear to be deterministic. So I think that inanimate things are deterministic, and living things are not. Do you agree? — Metaphysician Undercover

Rocks are predictable, as in they don't get up and walk away? :D By the way ...

Perfect predictability implies strict determinism, but lack of predictability does not necessarily imply lack of determinism. Limitations on predictability could be caused by factors such as a lack of information or excessive complexity.

That leaves blow around in autumn is fairly predictable, their exact paths not so much, and similarly for mosquitoes. Findings like planetary orbits and quantumatics are better examples.

The question 'What came before the beginning of time?' is almost trivial. — EnPassant

"Before time" is incoherent nonsense, much like "a cause of causation".
And the quote is self-contradictory, both asserting "the beginning of time" and "what came before".
Put differently, if we proceed from such phrases, then we're moving into "anything goes" territory. :confused:

To start with, the definition of God as the source of all contingent things is sufficient for 'belief in God' and sufficient for a simple definition of God. — EnPassant

Not good enough.
For X to be necessary in general, X must figure in all possible worlds. What do all possible worlds have in common? Say, R³ is a self-consistent whole, a possible world (however boring). Want to continue finding commonalities among whatever possible worlds, in order to narrow down your definition? You won't find anything alive thinking dishing out commands to mankind (worthy of of worship), or Shiva, or Yahweh, down that path. It's a line of thinking reminiscent of (neo)Platonic theologizing.
Well, your definition isn't anything I'd call God or a god at least.

, I think you might be referring to Nick Bostrom's argument.

Simulation hypothesis (Wikipedia)
The Simulation Argument (Bostrom)

There are various details of these arguments, including how likely it might be for sufficiently advanced beings to put together simulations.

So, where would we start? Rocks are deterministic, and human beings are not? How about a mosquito? — Metaphysician Undercover

We go by evidence. Say, findings like planetary orbits, quantumatics, ..., whatever. The world doesn't care about our metaphysics or whatever we think. Rather, our beliefs are the adjustable parts.

I agree with him. That's what I was referrring to. Many of the arguments in this and other threads are based on the conviction that science delivers just such a view. — Wayfarer

But it doesn't. From memory, examples have been posted in some of these threads. Say, Lorentz transformations tell you about what other observers might see.

A view from wherever. (Or anywhere.)

A somewhat typical idealist move (ironically perhaps), is to all out hypostatize. To replace the modeled with the model, the world with our ideas about the world, ...

But sure, we might say that the block-verse is a view from nowhere, like a visualized model. Which is what some do with some scientific models, that might be informative in some ways and less so in others.

Sure, and we also have evidence that suggests determinism. How do we determine which is the case. — Harry Hindu

Can't we have both? Some things are deterministic, some aren't... Actually, this is what evidence suggests. (And perhaps with further nuance, sometimes, depending on wider context or whatever, some things are variously deterministic or not...)

, I don't think my comment was scientific realism, just deflating some inflation, the apparently universalizing self-dependence (a hallmark of idealism).
Of course, there are likely many dependencies on me, say, if I chat with someone then that chat couldn't take place without me.
Isn't self-awareness given (to some), or am I misunderstanding your comment?
OK, no one likes solipsism, so I guess we'll just use the generic term "subject".
None of which entails any universally intrinsic subject(s).
Are you converging on the old mind conundrum (Levine, Chalmers), or maybe you just like your ever-present homunculi? :)

Rocks are conscious and feel?
Imagine the silent screams of the rubble in the driveway, when running them over with the car. :scream:
(Any "defender of the defenseless" is going to be really busy.)
How do panpsychists live anyway?

So QM determines that determinism is impossible? — Harry Hindu

Might be more accurate to say that evidence suggests nondeterminism?

Incidentally noticed that one of the references had the wrong link.
Fixed in the PDF.
Quantification --- Forming Propositions from Predicates — Shunichi Toida et al, Old Dominion University

'Phenomena' are 'what appears'. 'The mind' is what phenomena appear to. — Wayfarer

Alternatively, experiences are part of what mind is. Thus homunculus-free deflation, "what appears" is sometimes one end of worldly interaction, yours. Less excess of mental furniture at least.