My point is the arguments for God's existence do not have the power to convince anyone God exists - only Theists accept them. Why bother? — Relativist

Really? Why does America have 'In God we Trust" on their currency? Is that not a source or the tools used for the exchange of economic power?

You asked a bunch of irrelevant and poorly phrased questions, and you want to take the fact that I don’t give enough of a shit about you to engage with your nonsense to claim some kind of victory in a fight only you are having — Pfhorrest

I'm missing your point? Are you talking about these questions about the nature of existence:

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?

If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. They are relative to the nature of [your] conscious existence. Accordingly, it's almost as if you have no training or even any willingness, to engage in any debate about them :snicker:

So what you said earlier about an exchange of ideas seems contradictory. In your proposed approach, It seems as though if they are ideas or concepts that do not pose any challenges to you, then you welcome them. On the other hand, if they do, then you simply claim foul and throw in the towel for whatever reason.

Your question (1) isn't relevant to our exchange - I never claimed or implied anything about "the Will" - and (2) it also doesn't make sense to me for reasons given (in parenthesis). — 180 Proof

Is it not relevant because you said so? Hogwash. The Will, is something, not nothing. Please explain why it's not germane to the OP?

In the alternative, consider the relevancy associated with cosmology. Why must all events have a cause?

first place, you’re doing it wrong. The point is not to “prove” that your preconceived conclusions were right all along and “win” over the other guy, the point is for everyone to share their reasons for thinking as they do and together brainstorm possibilities that accounts for all of those reasons at once. — Pfhorrest

If you're looking for cigar smoking ego-strokes of your own ideology you're mistaken.

I've laid out numerous concepts and you've essentially folded under pressure. So either you haven't done the training, or you're scared that I might be right.

How about this, you have ample opportunity to prove me wrong.

If you're just saying that it's reasonable to make metaphysical assumptions, that may be - but then it's equally fine to deny those assumptions. — Relativist

It is not that it's a "may be" ; it's essential in discovery of novel theories about existence. Kant would basically say it's an innate feature of consciousness. And I would agree.

Think about it a moment. If you didn't have those intellectual abilities from your conscious existence, the discoveries such as the BB would not exist. Your metaphysical sense of wonderment is part of your own consciousness. You wonder about causation.

There is no argument that proves God based solely on non-controversial premises. — Relativist

Aren't there a multitude of controversial theories about existence? Take your own consciousness for example... ?

So, your point is... ?

did. Because you asked before. There’s a whole thread about it still on the front page. — Pfhorrest

I'm confused. I thought you threw in the towel over there?

That's why I'm suggesting a one-on-one title fight, just you and me?

Let me know when you're brave enough to take the fight !

Who said it isn't?

(Besides, only statements (or concepts) are or are not "metaphysical" so the question doesn't make (much) sense.) — 180 Proof

Hey 180, I thought you were an atheist who was an-in-the closet materilist!!?? LOL

Seriously, can you not answer the question? What is it about the Will are you having issues with as to avoid answering the question?

The point is, saying that one's own will and volitional existence allows for you to actually live and not die, supercedes the human instinct to live (& survive), no? In other words, what is it about your self-awareness that allows you to survive when you can easily choose to kill yourself?

That's an important metaphysical question about existence, yes? The Will.

No, that’s a way of saying YOU don’t understand metaphysics. — Pfhorrest

Mmmmm, nice. Then do tell, why you were unable to answer those metaphysical questions (?) I'm now wondering, is it because you can't or is it because you don't understand metaphysics?

How about this, I challenge you to make your case for the non-existence of God!! I say you are scared and will make some sort of ad hominum excuse. Kind of like what politicians do. You know, when they are scared they attack either the process itself or the person. But that's perfectly fine, it's all part of the strategy. Actually, I tdon't think that's anything new under the sun :snicker: .

Accordingly, much like my boxing match withTim Wood and Jorndoe, I predict I will knock you out in round 1 of our spirited debate!!!. And, may even spare you the Muhummad Ali rope-a-dope. Hahaha

What method best explains my will to live or die? — 3017amenCognitive Neuroscience. — 180 Proof

Let's parse each one carefully. This is a philosophy site last I checked. Therefore, what is it about the Will that is not metaphysical?

I don't see how they do, nor do I understand what you mean by your question. — Echarmion

You may want to study how synthetic a priori knowledge is possible.

I don’t feel frustrated discussing concepts about God. I just feel frustrated when people engage in them the way you do, with incomprehensible non-sequiturs, irrelevant questions calling for long in-depth answers that wouldn’t advance the main topic at all but only waste a ton of time, and then bad-faith reactions to those who wise up to your game and won’t fall for any of that. — Pfhorrest

Is that another way of saying that you don't understand metaphysics?

Synthetic a priori judgements don't imply a god. — Echarmion

They imply causation. Hint: explain causation viz conscious existence.

Let me know.

So, 3017amen, do you have any questions that haven't been asked of me by TheMadFool and already answered — 180 Proof

Sure, try some of these (they certainly relate to something/nothing viz self-aware conscious Beings ):

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?

180, why do we have those something's? Couldn't there be other possible world's without human consciousness/self-awareness?

The general problem is that they depend on questionable metaphysical assumptions. — Relativist

Wrong. Synthetic a priori judgements/assumptions are used all the time to test theories in physics.

The old-age metaphysical question: Why is there anything at all? — Wheatley(because)

• Stupid questions like this can't be asked unless there are fools to ask or answer them. (o___0)

• There is nothing to stop "anything at all" from coming-to-be, etc. ~Atomism (metaphysics)

• "Nothing is unstable." ~F. Wilczek, et al (physics) — 180 Proof

Correct me if I'm wrong, but there seems to be another irony there. If the question is stupid, why are you replying to it?

Not to be terse, but the only ignorant thing about the question is the denial that it's a metaphysical one. It's central to the question. Or better yet, just ask physicist Paul Davies LOL.

Actually, your "there is nothing to stop anything at all" is a metaphysical proposition, is it not? And so I'm confused as to why you would cross out metaphysical questioning, and suggesting that there are only fools who ask and answer same.

KT!

Very nice. You are one of the few who grasp the basic understanding of existential and metaphysical questioning (another good example is your follow-up posts in the 'unanswerable question' thread).

Much like the PAP theory in physics, it is what you ask that leads to revelation. Or in pop culture, it's all how you google it LOL.

Anyway, I would agree, either bewilderment or none of the above, seems more appropriate than not.

There is a common assumption that Eros is fundamentally unexplainable: passion, chemistry, love and attraction are apparently to be felt or excluded, but not understood. And yet a healthy dose of skepticism (not to be confused with risk avoidance) in relation to love and attraction can go a long way towards minimizing the effect of pain, humiliation and loss. Phenomena and intuition are indications that we are ignoring, isolating or excluding value/potential information that affects us nonetheless - interacting with a scientific methodology that includes this qualitative information may not result in objective certainty, but it enables us to improve our understanding of past, present and future interactions. — Possibility

I don’t think a person’s preference for psychic relatedness or objective interest is particularly innate to either ‘sex’. — Possibility

Possibility!

Thanks, I promise this will be the last piece of the puzzle as it were! And that relates to Eros.
I'm afraid I will be needing your guidance here. I'm having difficulty understanding some of your theory.

I know I've asked a similar question relating to Logos, but the concept of Eros seems a bit more nebulous. Can you expand a bit more on what you mean by this risk avoidance/loss phenomenon between the sexes?

I don't necessarily agree with Jung's characterization of Eros being exclusive to women attributes. I believe that both men and women experience a type of Eros in their romantic relationships toward each other, which may or may not continue throughout such duration of same. For example, while having a passionate marriage that lasts for years can be a result of both an Eros and Logos connection (material and non-material agencies), the phenomenon of the initial (and/or long lasting) physical attraction is what both sexes seem to have in common in that as being physical creatures, we cannot escape physical appearances and the attraction thereto.

And that leads to one of many questions concerning physical chemistry. While non-physical chemistry exists as mentioned (an intellectual connection), why should one discount the power behind aesthetical beauty. In other words, both men and women are attracted to each other physically, and appreciate each other's physical attributes, yet can we objectively explain why that is? For example, we use terms such as ; passion, chemistry, the love for the object itself, etc.. which implies a inseparable connection between mind and matter.

Perhaps the fundamental question is, what is physical chemistry?

Let me also add a subquestion to that and ask to the atheist. If these arguments are all a failure. Is that part of the reason why you are atheist? — DoppyTheElv

Welcome Doppy!

It's been my observation that there are more angry/resentful atheists than there are reasonable one's. There are many reasons for this, but I have found that this usually stems from the rubrics of religion. comments are a good example of an upbringing gone wrong. As many do, he suffered, and is still suffering from those bad experiences that has contributed to his frustrations over discussions relating to concepts about God.

Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged. For example:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Of course another way (pragmatically) to approach Philosophical discussion about God is to analogize to existential phenomenon or metaphysical phenomenon. For example, take a look at conscious existence. Consciousness is both physical and metaphysical. Personally, I have yet to find an atheist able to parse or explain the nature of our mental states from say our sensory perceptions in both a materialistic and non-materialistic way. A few examples are:

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival?

The lists are endless.

And so some of those metaphysical questions that arise from our cognitive states of Being seem mysterious or unknown. The true nature of their existence is unknown or unknowable, as it were. Yet they somehow exist in our consciousness albeit unexplainable. And they certainly do not have biological significance or survival value as instinct would be all that's needed for same. In a way, one could say they seem to be redundant features of existence.

One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? Or another philosophical way of asking that is, what means or method will provide for the ability to make factual statements about the existence or non-existence of those aforementioned things-in-themselves (?).

Just trying to get you to support your claim that's all. Perhaps you and florrest should get together and eat some humble pie LOL

Gee, you are like a boxer who throws in the towel due to lack of training !!

Be well!

Okay, as you wish. Unfortunately, since you are throwing in the towel, my only conclusion here is, the fact of bringing to light your deficiencies in your arguments only substantiates my claim that you really don't seem to have a basic grasp of things like metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, etc..

Ironically, based upon the spirit of your OP/God, you seem to be afraid to answer those metaphysical/the nature of existence questions.

Forrest! Don't hide behind ad hominem. If your scared say your scared. Otherwise, does your silence indicates acquiescence to the inability of supporting your arguments about objectivity (your sense of objective truth)?

An individual who reports a specific attitude, professes sincerity, or claims to be in love is reporting their own feelings. Feelings are mental states. Mental states are brain states. Brains are physical. — ChrisH

Let's see, I'm not sure that captures the explanation of consciousness, or does it? Please provide your explanation of mental states from sensory perception in a materialistic way:

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which means and method is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things-in-themselves.

I must admit, I am having difficulty making your leap of faith, from feelings about love, attitude, sincerity, the will, etc. to pieces of wood, concrete, and other material agencies. Maybe those examples will allow you to be more specific?

Sure!

In the meantime, if you are unable to answer my questions I understand.

I will take your silence as acquiescence to the inability of making factual statements about existing and non-existing things.

At last, I have found true love! — Key

Nice! What kind of love did you find LOL

Are we going in circles?! — Key

Don't include me in the mess you've made of your logic LOL

I'm cool with that. — Key

Would you be okay if I hunted you for meat then LOL

didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection. — Key

But why do you exist? All you've said so far is to eat and drink. If everyone thought that there would be no procreation hence you would not exist. I'm confused.

exist because I have a will to live that consists of eating and drinking. — Key

What other things consist of this will to live? In principal, if you say ' nothing', then you are essentially relegating yourself to a lower life-form, right?

Also I'm not entirely sure that's true... — Key

Interesting. What is your theory then? The reason I ask is because if you don't understand emergent properties of animal instinct, nor your own features of existence/your will to live, how can you possibly make any factual statements about existing or non-existing things?

In other words,you say you exist but you don't know why or how, no? The nature of your own existence seems to be somewhat of an enigma I suppose...

Will to live encapsulates many instincts... drink water? will to live? eat food? will to live? etc...

The three words "will to live" may only not be instincts because they're used to describe instincts. — Key

Okay great! So should I interpret that as meaning the reason why you exist is to eat and drink?

didn't have some will to live I would not exist... See natural selection. — Key

Surely you can do better than that! Meaning, all that's required in natural selection is instinct.

No will to live is required. Therefore, once again, explain to me your will to live and not die.

Though you might want to be a little more precise in what you are referencing... "will to live"? "will"? — Key

Key!

Sure. Explain your will to live and not die?

How would we possibly find that, rather than just finding that we haven’t been able to answer them YET? — Pfhorrest

Because your sense of objective truth has limited your understanding. Otherwise please share how objectivity can provide for enlightenment?

The nature of it may be unknown (I don’t think so, but that doesn’t matter here), but there is some true nature of it anyway. That true nature is true (duh), even if we don’t know it. — Pfhorrest

Interesting. Why don't you think so? Please share your theory, if you have one.

“I don’t know” is always an acceptable response, but “we can never know” never is. — Pfhorrest

I’m saying to reject the notion that any question is unanswerable to begin with. — Pfhorrest

So, what if it is discovered that the questions (questions about your own existence which you can't answer) are unanswerable because once we dive into them, we find we can never know the answers, what then?

Can your sense of objective truth be the means and method of enlightenment?

can’t tell you that something in particular is true but unknown, because I would have to know that it is true to tell you that. — Pfhorrest

Are you sure? Let's see, common sense says you have a will to live. So it is true you have a will.

But the nature of your will (how it really works, it's design, it's origin aka : the-thing-in-itself) is unknown.

Therefore, how is your forgoing quote correct?

The question is: could quarks be broken down in smaller pieces too? And those pieces of quarks, could they be further broken down, etc. etc. ad infinitum? — Olivier5

Sure! There also could exist multiple universes. In multiverse theory, there could be universes that use entirely different laws of physics. Cosmologically, whether it turtles or multiverse theories, perhaps the one common theme to all of them is that it they all require some form of belief, or leap of faith. Really not much different than scientific beliefs about causation.

When you report your (sincere) love of ice cream, you're reporting your brain state (attitude). Brain states are commonly regarded as having material physical existence. — ChrisH

Chris, welcome!

Nice. Let's take a look at that. In my consciousness exists both material an immaterial things. Using your concept "attitude" and "sincerity" along with my concept "love" how do we reconcile materialism with those concepts from conscious/physical existence?

Hence:

Attitude is what materially and/or physically?

Love is what materially and/or physically?

Sincere is what materially and/or physically?

At random, some possible answers and/or related concepts include EM fields of consciousness, Eros, Sentience, the Will , etc..

In the end, if these questions about concepts are unanswerable, why should one reject them when they are required for conscious existence (the human experience)?

How many times to I have to tell you that there being an answer doesn't mean anyone knows the answer?

I don't know the answers to those things. But there are answers. Because to assume otherwise is simply not to try to answer them. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps we are talking past each other. let me copy my questions to you again. I mean, come on, you're a philosopher, let's dive into one of these domains and parse the concept(s) accordingly:

Concepts:

Love: ontological, epistemological, logical, ethical/moral, metaphysical, phenomenological?

The Will : [ insert domain's?]

Wonder : [ insert domain's?]

Causation : [ ?]

Sentience : [?]

So using your approach or default mechanism toward objectivity, tell me which domain can best explain the reason for my will to live or die?

Which domain can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

Which domain can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

Which domain can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

Which domain can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Take one at a time if you like, and we can parse which domain is most suitable in trying to explain the nature of those things in themselves.

Unknown" doesn't mean "neither right nor wrong". — Pfhorrest

I'm not understanding. Philosophically, what does 'Unknown' mean then? That is an important question with respect to your OP is it not?

Things can be true, but not known. — Pfhorrest

Interesting. I think we are making progress. Do you have examples of existential things that are true but are unknown? Let's take the Will for example. It seems like it is true you have a Will, yet the nature of such is unknown correct?