I'm a big fat buzzin' gadfly. Btw, who said anybody is actually "awake"?

Indeed, one must say then Sophia is seeking man and not the other way round. — Agent Smith

One must be on the vagabond road freely thinking in order maybe to be found by Sophia rather than hold up warm and dry, well-fed and smug in some cozy destination (dogma) merely believing.

So what? We're flawed – "unstable" – in our thinking, feelings, beliefs; however, philosophy is a discipline for correcting or mitigating such flaws. I'm as consciously godless as I can be insofar as I'm striving to be fully attentive to the real as much as possible. For me, like Sisyphus, understanding consists in eliminating every "unreal element" from my way of life. :death: :flower:

Yes, philosophers are not even looking for "God" so the question of "finding" it is moot. I take Rabbi Abraham Heschel at his word: God is in search of man rather than the other way around.

It seems arche is very similar to God. — Agent Smith

I prefer the real.

It's the only thing we got?! — Agent Smith

Far from it, mi amigo. We temporarily have everything else too.

Is philosophy even searching for "God"? I've always thought philosophers seek wisdom (i.e. greater understanding).

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct — Agent Smith

I don't think so.

Emergence describes entities as having properties which their constituent parts do not have. (Re: ontology)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergence

Holism denotes interpreting entities as 'wholes without discrete parts' or without reducing wholes to their constituents. (Re: epistemology)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holism

Caveat: 'Idealists' tend to conflate ontology with epistemology and therefore, in this instance, confuse emergence with holism.

self-caused — ucarr

This is synonymous both with 'uncaused to exist' (i.e. eternal) and with 'self-organizing' (e.g. vacuum fluctuations, biological evolution).

Again, which "concept of God" are you referring to?
Mono / duo / poly theism?
Panentheism?
Pantheism?
Deism?
Panendeism?
Pandeism?
Acosmism?
Animism?

No, they wake sleepwalkers (or disturb their 'dreaming'). Now, if too many sleepwalkers awaken, then "the powerful" might be alarmed. Besides, Jamal, Baden, Benkei, et al run "this agora", as I call it, to accomodate gadflies (critics/skeptics) as well as sleepwalker (dogmatics/sophists), so they – "the powerful" – aren't targets (like e.g. @Gnomon) of my interrogations and cross-examinations.

I was too busy during the 80s & 90s to much, if any watch tv and only started watching tv again when I moved across country to be closer to my family while my nephews were growing up in the 00s & 10s. Btw, Seinfield's brand of "humor" doesn't do a thing for me. I grew up mostly in the 70s and was an undergrad in the early 80s. From what I can tell I really didn't miss much on television from 1980-2010. I think my list above illustrates my tastes in tv entertainment.

From my own list of favorite films
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774715 I think most of those casts were perfect.

I'd also add
Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
In the Heat of the Night
Guess Who's Coming to Dinner
One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest
The Good, The, Bad and The Ugly
Chinatown
Jaws
Alien 1-3
Annie Hall
The Color Purple
Star Trek 2, 4, 6
The Cook, The Wife, The Thief & Her Lover
Full Metal Jacket
Hannah and Her Sisters
Do the Right Thing
Miller's Crossing
Reservoir Dogs
Pulp Fiction
Se7en
Casino
Gladiator
Analyze This
Serenity
Bourne 1-3
No Country for Old Men
Mystic River
Batman Begins
The Dark Knight
Fences
Inception
The Children of Men
Inglorious Bastards
Django Unchained
Margin Call
etc ...

That was Augustine, of course. Never let comprehension get in his way. — Ciceronianus

:smirk:

si ENIM comprhendis non est deus, — Agent Smith

No doubt an inferior version of

The Dao that can be spoken
is not the eternal Dao.
The name that can be named
is not the eternal name. — Laozi

All else is idolatry.

Being a native Ne]w Yorker of (mostly) the 60s-70s, I couldn't relate to either show.

I walked out of Fellowship of the Ring (too annoyed demand a refund) by the time "they fought the cave troll" in Moria. I can't say I'd liked any aspect of Peter Jackson's DnD-fan wank adaptations; it was all so wrong for me. I'm still waiting for LotR & The Hobbit – as well as the Earthsea Saga, The Black Company, The Prince of Nothing trilogy, stories of "Conan the Cimmerian", etc – to get a proper multi-season series treatment like HBO's GoT received (at least for the first 4 seasons).

What does "establishment" have to do with anything here?

Yes, I loved it too.

Tom Cruise & Demi Moore ruin it for me. Like the way Sophia Coppola mars Godfather III.

:fire:

Occam's barber is the fix.

You wouldn't ask if you'd read much of the back and forth between Gnomon and myself. Inside joke (with a "weird" kernel of truth).

Can't say I have ever felt like I belong anywhere, except maybe some jazz bar somewhere with a Sazerac and a freshly lit Lucky Strike... those day are long gone. If god stories involved booze and jazz clubs, I might have been a theist. — Tom Storm

We're soul brothers, Tom, in the St.Germain-des-Pres, circa 1953. :cool:

Some claim matter is neither created nor destroyed. How do you go about refuting this? — ucarr

Create or destroy some matter.

anti-metaphysical prejudice that dump all non-physical notions into the anti-science (religious) waste-bin. — Gnomon

We "dump all" woo-of-the-gaps "notions" like yours, Gnomon, into "the waste bin" of dognatic, New Age sophistry. Don't mind me, though, I'm just another one of those persistent gadflies buzzin' around this agora – swat me away if you can. :smirk: Btw, even an "anti-metaphysical prejudice", as you say, is a metaphysical position (such as my own speculations), just one which you don't like and/or can't comprehend.

the physics [physical theories (propositions)] vs metaphysics [interpretations of physical theories (suppositions)] debate

Another of your nonsensical assumptions (i.e. "prejudices"). :lol:

... you legislate away all of my arguments, instead of dealing with them.

Objecting to unsubstatiated interpretations, misstated facts and overall poor reasoning (despite your refusal to directly respond to / refute such objections), sir, is "dealing with them" – your so-called "arguments" – in a way more seriously than you apparently deserve.

si comprhendis non est deus — Agent Smith

Translate ...

Il est facile de voir que ... we're not in a position to answer that question. — Agent Smith

If so, then why assume ॐ implies anything at all?

:up: :up:
So which are type are you, Tom?

At my best I'm probably ¼"theorist", ¼"fool" & ½"thinker" (but I might be flattering myself). :sweat:

Well, "what's implied by ॐ"?

Yeah, but is theism – its sine qua non claims – true or not true?

To me it is a choice to try and explain everything without a creator ... — Andrew4Handel

So tell us how you / we scientifically know that "everything" was created. If you cannot, then you / we do not have any grounds to believe there is / was a "creator" of the universe. :chin:

Ouch. :smirk:

The concept of God is inherently unprovable and unverifiable. — gevgala

Which "concept of God"?

There's more than one concept and countlessly more instantiations of those concepts.

I don't think the onus is on the design advocate to find a designer ... — Andrew4Handel

Well, at the very least, "the onus is on the design advocate to" demonstrate scientifically that both the universe and life are "designed" in the first place. :roll:

The recent explosion of human technology is arguably mostly down to the fortuitous (or not) discovery of fossil fuels in my view. — Janus

:up:

I sometimes identify myself as an agnostic Deist. I have no direct experience of the putative deity of my theory, merely circumstantial evidence, sufficient for conviction of creation. — Gnomon

Confirmation of my criticism that your "Enformer / Programmer" = "intelligent designer" = "creator" = woo-of-the-gaps. :sparkle: :eyes:

Word salad. :shade:

What we do know is that intelligent design exists — Andrew4Handel

This statement is not true unless, of course, you / someone can cite conclusive scientific evidence in favor of "ID". As I've pointed out already, unique and testable predictions cannot be derived from it, and so, like other creationist myths, "ID" doesn't explain anything about the natural world.

PS do you only make short posts?

No. However, I always avoid posting excessive word salads and tendentious run-on non sequiturs. Search my post history.

I see myself as "Canonical" (or try to be).

:smirk:

E.g. (my) pandeus?

:up:
:up:

@Gnomon

My mental model of YOUR enformer is the one YOU have delivered, wrapped in YOUR deistic bow!!
1. Do you want to withdraw YOUR comparison of YOUR enformer with deism?
2. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence that there has to be a first cause for the creation of our universe?
3. Do you want to withdraw YOUR insistence, that any posited first cause for the creation of our universe, has to be a 'mind with intent?'

If you don't want to retract these comparators, that YOU invoked, then YOUR enformer, remains exactly as I suggested, yet another lazy god of the gaps posit. — universeness

:clap: :100:

:ok:

You do realize, don't you, that classical atomism is metaphysics – a gedankenexperiment – and not physics – a physio-mathematical model? That's why I referred to it as "a roughly analogous picture". Get John Dalton's premature misnomer out of your head, Wayf. :roll:

↪180 Proof

Understood. The denial of atoms was intended to illustrate my point about terminology. The term atom is still being used, but it means something different than what Democritus meant. And now it is not only that atoms are divisible but that talk of particles is being rejected and replaced by field — Fooloso4

:fire:

If you believe humans can create things but are uncreated then the same can apply for a hypothetical creator deity. — Andrew4Handel

The fundamental difference is that humans exist and, as far as humans know, a "creator deity" does not exist.

Non sequitur.