I'm under the impression that we may have "reasons" other than a good argument to believe. — Agent Smith

Such as ...

A chilling wind blew across Manhattan that afternoon as they wheeled Malcolm out of the Audubon strapped atop a stretcher. A delay held up the departure of the ambulance for long minutes as little Chuey inched through the milling crowd up to the great man now supine. 'I’m not dead,' he told the pop-eyed boy. Was his smile charming the frigid air? Heck. Only the red film covering his teeth suggested anything amiss. 'You believe me, son?' 'Ain’t got not beliefs,' snorted Chuey. The eyes of the annointed started slowly closing, a calming peace now spreading across his face. 'Best answer. Receive my blessing. Assalamu Alaikum.' Something made Chuey speak. 'Wa alaikum assalam.' Loud banging sounds as the stretcher collapsed into the speeding-away ambulance. 'Ain’t got no beliefs,' Chuey repeated. And then, 'but now I got reason to act like I do.' — ucarr

:death: :flower:

"Einstein's God" is Spinoza's natura naturans (i.e attributes of substance aka (modal) "laws of nature"). :fire:

What is the word? — Agent Smith

Apparently, whatever G_d says ...

... in chess and in the road. :wink:

I dunno but Mr. Anderson, Morpheus, and Trinity are looking for The Keymaker. — Agent Smith

Another one of The Architect's macguffins. Remember, Smith: "There is no spoon" (i.e. there is no Matrix). :smirk:

Life is the dialectic. Bliss plus torment produces awareness. Again and again; more and more. Take the heroin and ease the pain at the cost of your life. — unenlightened

:death: :flower:

Do you believe: vulnerability = vulnerable, soul = souls? — ucarr

No.

Do you categorically reject common sense?

No.

The question: Is there a key that unlocks all doors? — Agent Smith

Are "all doors" actually locked?

As a philosophical naturalist I exclude non-natural 'first principles'.

:fire:

Why do you surround vulnerable and soul with quotation marks? — ucarr

I quoted your words.

Common sense.

It's also "common sense" that the Earth is flat and the Sun rises and sets, all swans are white and hammers always fall faster than feathers, etc.

My candidates for arche:
dao, or atomist void, or natura naturans ... :fire:

do they believe in God because of blind faith? ... or do they need an empirical evidence? — javi2541997

... or delusion? ... or whichever is cognitively-socially easier? ... or???

:up: :up:

.
. a statement that I didn't understand. — Agent Smith

All I mean is that "religious apologists" posit a first cause and call it "god" though they, in every case I'm aware of, fail to show that it's the same deity referred to in the Bible or Quran or any "sacred scripture" which folk actually worshipped. At most, the cosmological apologetics of theists paradoxically gets them only as far as deism (or god-of-the-gaps like e.g. @Gnomon's "enformer").

:up: :up:

:fire:

[W]e are only lab rats, if god exists. — universeness

:smirk:

We always have a choice whether or not to hold rational (dis)beliefs.

Google any of the bolded names in the first paragraph or the video lecture at the bottom.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/582454

:up: No "lack of belief" here, just active disbelief.

None exist for consciousness. — Agent Smith

Explain.

:ok:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/463672 (follow the links ... or not)

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too?
— 180 Proof

Yes. — ucarr

Panpsychism?

No one has either proved/disproved the existence of god. All that has been accomplished is refutations of mainly theistic arguments, that they're unsound. — Agent Smith

Well, that's good enough to demonstrate that disbelief in theistic g/G is more reasonable than theistic g/G-beliefs. From a recent post ...

↪Agent Smith These semantic muddles are why I prefer the more probative question of Is theism true or not true? rather than merely "Does g/G exist?" If theism is not true (i.e. antitheism), then atheism (i.e. every theistic g/G is a fiction) follows; however, whether or not "g/G exists" does not entail either belief or disbelief in g/G ... — 180 Proof

Also (same thread):
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/774753 :fire:

So you believe paramecia – perhaps the most "vulnerable" life forms – have "souls" too?

Yeah but not the "god of religion" ...

:smirk:

I'm not here to make the case for theism, but saying there's no evidence is just not true. — T Clark

Well, there certaintly isn't any corroborable, non-anecdotal, public evidence of or sound arguments for "theism" (e.g. the existence of any "theistic" g/G). No doubt I could be wrong about this ... :smirk:

:smirk:

I'm seeking your thoughts on my four statements. — ucarr

What are those statements (link)?

↪RussellA

As I see it, our conversation, an interview in which you answer questions, has to date distilled five big questions: — ucarr

Interesting exchange. How do you answer those questions?

↪Gnomon
I differ with you on two of your main projections.
1. No first cause is necessary.
2. No mind with intent is necessary in the creation of the universe. — universeness

:100: :up:

@Agent Smith

My baker's dozen ...

All in the Family 1971-75
The Boondocks 2005-10
Chappell's Show
Deadwood (+ Movie)
The Expanse 2015-18
Fawlty Towers
Firefly
I, Claudius
Mad Men 2007-10
Rome
Star Trek 1966-69
True Detective 2014
The Twilight Zone 1959-64

:cool:

I prefer series over films for the opportunity to develop personalities and plot intricacies — jgill

Ditto :up:

Top Ten TV series???

@universeness

Thanks for the posts. I'm confident that they won't persuade those who need to be persuaded out of their error. Lots of pseudo-science and bad physics – 'idealist / antirealist interpretations' of physical theories – plague this site and the purveyors – no need to name names :sparkle: – are incorrigible.

How do we explain comprehension with molecules and their structures? — Agent Smith

I guess you didn't run down all these rabbit holes...

↪Agent Smith
From a Metzingerian perspectiive, "self" is a (persistently embodied) phenomenal illusion re:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/626347 — 180 Proof

:roll:

Atoms which make up strawberries don't taste like strawberries either. Biology emerges from chemistry, Smith, not "sorcery".

Of course, we have subjective experiences. — Jack Cummins

You take it as a given but you don't know. I agree it's a handy heuristic, and maybe that's all it is.

We can make some guess at others' minds ...

... and your / my own "mind" too – since it's also "subjective" – perhaps an introspection illusion ...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Introspection_illusion

So holism i.e. antireductionism? :chin: — Agent Smith

Non sequitur.

We know that other people have inner experiences because we are able to talk about them in a comparative way. — Jack Cummins

Yet if another didn't have "inner experiences" but acted or spoke as if she did, you wouldn't – couldn't – know. It seems to me, Jack, that's not a reliable way of knowing.

... common aspects of such experience.

If by "inner experiences" what you mean is subjective, then I don't see what about them can possibly be called "common" (i.e. public, objective). :chin:

... the inner experiences of human beings — Jack Cummins

Tell me how do you know that any other human being than yourself has "inner experiences". None of the concepts in the OP make clear how you (or anyone) can know that.

If I rubbed two sticks together and consciousness emerged that would be an emergent property but it would also be magic and inexplicable like neurons firing creating consciousness. — Andrew4Handel

Equivocating non sequitur. :roll:

↪180 Proof You didn't cite any of the article.

The article offers a further reading reference, not an argument. I gave an example of how 'a whole greater than the sum of its parts' is the most ordinary, least mysterious thing (again, such as semantics of a sentence). It's a mystery to me, Andrew, how any numerate person would find emergence – nonlinear dynamic (i.e. chaotic) processes or systems – "mysterious".