I'm neither -- just as I'm neither about ectoplasm. Until someone explains what it is, I can't be for it, against it, or agnostic about it. — Xtrix

Interesting.

Think about the nature of your own existence. If someone doesn't explain to you the nature of your own existence, what would be the purpose of same ( your own existence)?

In the alternative, if someone does happen to explain to you the nature of your existence, what position should you take, and on what basis, using logic or some other method/phenomenal experience (?).

Believe it or not, those questions relate to causation.

Consciousness.

(aka, what is self-awareness.)

The fact that your mind automatically goes to labeling me "atheist" is yet another reason against you. If you're a teenager or young adult, then my apologies. I assume only older people post here. — Xtrix

Likewise my apologies if that label does not fit the bill. Actually there's probably a decent amount of atheists who are in-the-closet agnostic.

But much like the far right-wing extremist/fundamentalist, the stereotypical atheist comes across as angry and bitter. But let's not derail the thread.

Don't want to put words in your mouth but I too, would rather maintain a positive spirit wherever possible... .Thanks for planting the seed... :up:

not sure that suffices to make a reasonable inference, but I think I understand what you're saying and acknowledge its persuasiveness. I would say it's more an evocation than an inference; nothing magical, but like a great work of art, poem or music. Something evokes a kind of conclusion. — Ciceronianus the White

Of course I broad-brushed the response. The classic example that directly involves abstract metaphysical/timeless truths, is the existence of mathematical genius. Mathematics are objective metaphysical, timeless truths (as far as living in this world is concerned). The nature of mathematics by implication involves many of those concepts from our conscious existence.

The one existential inference that relates to the existence of math is, the fact that we don't need the laws of gravity to dodge falling objects. There is no Darwinian biological survival value. And yet it is so effective in describing the physical universe and of course works in everydayness and/or the engineering profession, construction, etc. etc..

Point is we can abstractly describe physical objects by running calculations through the discipline of mathematics. I can run a calculation to size up a roof truss that doesn't exist yet. Similarly, I would not need to run abstract calculations in order to dodge falling objects.

And so we have this abstract existence, that metaphysical existence, that exists in our consciousness.

What is the likelihood of those features of human existence having emerged from complete chaos, nothingness, purposelessness, etc?

Same with the existence of music and music theory. And of course likewise anything that relates to intelligence beyond lower life forms; self-awareness, phenomenology (love, wonderment, sense of time, colors, ad nauseum) etc.,etc..

The good news is that we are able to make distinctions between abstracts which provide for our quality of life, whether it's buildings, engineering, cars, love, music, and so on. The bad news is, within the realm of this human condition there exists an old adage called ignorance is bliss LoL.

Again, we are trapped in this metaphysical sense of wonderment and causation.

I have not read the publication you mentioned thank you. Can you give me a synopsis?

How can we reasonably infer from the fact that intelligence is in the universe that it is also "someplace" outside of he universe? — Ciceronianus the White

Great question. Because when we naturally use our sense of wonder (the Kantian 'all events must have a cause') axiom, then we naturally default to regressive reasons that invoke Anthropology, and the other way around. Causation leads us to inferences about ourselves, our self-awareness, our existence, our consciousness, and other Anthropic theories of existence, etc..

Otherwise, we are left with consciousness emerging from complete chaos. Or, in the alternative, nothingness, meaninglessness, nihilism, etc..

We are trapped in our metaphysical sense of wonderment.

NICE! I just saw that while I was posting. Let me do a look-see.... and would love to offer my take on it...

3017amen's God is an abstraction. A fairly radical departure from most religions that comes to mind. That's assuming the assertions here. — jorndoe

Sure jorndoe, thanks for that observation. Being a Christian Existentialist myself, it serves to support my views concerning the concept of God being Dipolar (similar to the God physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God posits) in that, God is both timeless and within time (temporal/a-temporal) all at the same time.

The important or consistent part to that is : 1. it defies logic/LEM which is fine. 2. yet it is still within the realm of logic (logical possibility) because of abstract mathematical truth's existing (which describe the laws of nature/existence) being logically possible/eternal/unchanging truth.

And so, as with human conscious existence (intelligence), where you have both consciousness and subconsciousness defying logic (LEM), why couldn't an 'intelligent cause' be that which is both abstract and beyond logic to us?

The mere concept of God then, is both logical and illogical as it should be(?). If there was a way to create time and existence (something from nothing/or just simply a universe itself), then this entire causation discussion would not exist, literally and figurately. That's my Existential take; absurd, yet not so absurd, when analogized to our existence.

Of course, that begs other questions like what is the nature of God's intelligence and does God even have consciousness for which we cannot even explain in ourselves, along with other questions like what was God doing before he created Time (BB), and was timelessness and eternity created or caused having a starting point...ad nauseum.

For shits and giggles, here's an excerpt from Eternity in Christian Thought that attempts explanation of a Dipolar God:


Timeless Without and Temporal With Creation

William Lane Craig’s view is that God is timeless without creation, and temporal with creation (Craig 2000). God exists timelessly “without” creation rather than before creation, because there isn’t literally a before. And so it can’t literally be the case that God becomes temporal, since becoming anything involves being first one thing and then the other. Nonetheless, God is “timeless without creation and temporal subsequent to creation ”, God “enters time at the moment of creation” (Craig 2000: 33). God exists changelessly and timelessly, but by creating, God undergoes an extrinsic change “which draws Him into time” (Craig 2000: 29).

The problem is that even extrinsic change still presupposes a before and after (Leftow 2005: 66). Craig is aware of the difficulty:


[O]n such a view, there seem to be two phases of God’s life, a timeless phase and a temporal phase, and the timeless phase seems to have existed earlier than the temporal phase. But this is logically incoherent, since to stand in a relation of earlier than is by all accounts to be temporal. (Craig 2000: 32)

His solution is

that “prior” to creation there literally are no intervals of time […] no earlier and later, no enduring through successive intervals and, hence, no waiting, no temporal becoming. This state would pass away, not successively, but as a whole, at the moment of creation, when time begins.


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/eternity/#TimeWithTempCrea

way out I think is to have a first cause that is timeless and finite. — Devans99

But isn't timelessness eternity? Just as a formality.

Devan, am I correct in my reply below?


Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality?
— Devans99

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)

think eternity is impossible; it's a form of infinity. — Devans99

But here's the irony, mathematical truths that describe the laws of nature are eternal unchanging truth's.

So we have within our grasp a sense of eternity which doesn't make it impossible.

Correct we would be wondering what started or caused infinity and or eternity, right?

1. Everything in time has a reason
2. Nothing can be the reason for itself
3. (From 1 and 2) At least one reason must be outside of time

Can you see a way out of this logical dilemma that does not involve atemporality? — Devans99

I don't think there is a way out. The only way out is, if the Big Bang did not happen, which would make time itself, eternity/outside of time (?)

we can't prove or infer that this "cause" has any of the characteristics we normally attribute to God. — Ciceronianus the White

If part of your own conscious existence (intelligence) is both physical and metaphysical, and the idea of intelligence is both physical and metaphysical, then could it be reasonably inferred that intelligence is behind the cause of the universe including your own conscious existence?

In other words, explain how consciousness emerges from complete chaos?

It's a loaded term with so much extraneous baggage that it has no place in your argument accept as a dishonest attempt to prove something like Christianity.

I might could answer that. You have much more evidence that the concept of God is behind the cause of conscious existence than atheism, which is no-thing. Or, perhaps there is some other sentient baggage at work that most angry atheists seem to have, who knows... .

Accordingly, the reality is It could be the same leap of faith that causes one to believe in the paradigm of atheism. But that would mean that atheism is just another religion LOL

Of course. Then it (the anthropic principle) must preclude consciousness emerging from chaos then, right?

And, since you said: " Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it. Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it".

In other words, our existence is logically necessary. What else then is logically necessary to our conscious existence?

well it's quite a controversial book but he basically says that subconsciously women do want to exchange sex for resources but only with high value males. So the object does not want to be seen as an object so that the object can extract more resources from the male. — Gitonga

Interesting...sort of a hidden agenda there, imagine that :chin: Where's Freud when you need him!?

If one were to use logic (not that our sense of logic explains other world view's), the infinite regress of turtle power would mean that there was no Big Bang. If physical science had not discovered the phenomenon of the Big Bang, then I suppose you could argue that infinite regress, being one in the same as eternity, would have precluded the need for a first cause in the first place.

However, in that scenario you are still left with the question pertaining to the definition of time itself. So, to that end, in theory, time would be considered eternity then, right? There would be no need to consider a timeless cause.

And if that makes any sense, you would nonetheless still be wondering about what caused eternity. (And that's because you have something rather than no-thing that exists.)

That question doesn't make sense to me. I don't "believe" in logic. Logic is fundamental to my thinking. — Echarmion

You were proposing that it was logical that human consciousness exists through logical necessity. And so, what else exists through logical necessity?

Hahaha....I know, I pray for him, just like a pray for Trump lol.

But seriously, just think about it. If you study enough philosophy, you will see that 90% of all domain's invoke or posit God's existence. Go figure... .

Don't hide behind ad hominem, if you're scared say you're scared LOL!

Okay, how about we focus on existentialism and phenomenology?

Let me know!

Sounds good just so you know the rules will be wide open: all philosophical domains will be argued. But I will mainly focus on existentialism and phenomenology. Just let me know!!

Let me know I'll be happy to debate you one-on-one!!

If you're scared, say you're scared . LoL

Because only in a universe with patterns would there be some patterns capable of thinking about it.

Logically, if humans can ask the question then the universe must allow humans. So, from a purely logical perspective, the answer to the question: "why does the universe allow for life?" is: "because there is life in it". — Echarmion

So it sounds like you believe in logical necessity then, no?

What is called 'causation' is just an association of events - as cogently pointed out by Hume. — A Seagull

NICE. What causes consciousness? Was it you, or Hume that figured that one out !?

Put in a quarter and try again! Lol

seems to me that you are just playing with words. — A Seagull

Philosophy lives in words, but truth and fact well up into our lives in ways that exceed verbal formulation- William James

Dichotomy: division into two mutually exclusive, opposed, or contradictory groups:
a dichotomy between thought and action.

LOL

silence is because it's incredibly boring. God is a word, and an essentially meaningless one -- can mean anything you want it to. — Xtrix

Then why are you contributing to the thread...out of boredom? LOL

Since you are not able to answer the question that speaks volumes already. If I was an atheist I wouldn't even be contributing to this thread because it would be meaningless. It seems obvious that any atheist who bothers to care, has no faith in their belief system.

I'd recommend that you just walk away from the table. It certainly would help your credibility in any case... LOL

The Timeless cannot be any one state in particular because there is no input point to what never began, so, it is everything, and we go on to note that it doesn't remain as anything particular even for an instant, but continually transmutes, according to what we call the laws of nature, in a topological type way—remaining as itself at heart.

Or, still as mostly above, but we traverse through everything, on our world line path already carved out, since we had a particular start. — PoeticUniverse

But the point is, if timelessness is eternity, which we cannot figure out, and if temporal time is an illusion ( which has been successfully argued before) , either one becomes a mystery. And so what's the difference; we cannot figure out the phenomenon of time regardless of whether it's temporal or unchanging and timeless.

Yet our Kantian consciousness cries out that ' all events must have a cause'. Why should you care?

Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments? — jorndoe

Really, you mean you were able to answer those questions, where?

But we have knowledge of what empirically exists as it were, enough to provide clues, through induction, that more likely than not, an intelligent cause is/was at work. But that's just science. Metaphysics, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science, are a few of many other domains that provide clues inferring causation.

No matter how you think of it, causation, by definition, is metaphysical, is it not?

No worries. Materialism, Aesthetics, et. al. are just to name a few concepts worth wrapping your brain around. For example, just as a sort of synopsis of Materialism: the philosophical theory that regards matter and its motions as constituting the universe, and all phenomena, including those of mind, as due to material agencies.

Now, before you get your panties in a bunch, this doesn't suggest 'dichotomization'... , know what I mean vern?

Having been answered, are you going to stop ignoring comments? — jorndoe

I thought I did, but for some reason you failed to pass muster in answering my concerns. But yes, God does exist, if that's what you are asking me.

presumably referring to things outside our universe (unless one claims that our universe is self created), for which there is no data. — A Seagull

Do you have knowledge of what exists outside the universe?

Okay sure, let's stay on topic. Was conscious existence caused from chaos?

Those who show favor might not become dear
Do not fear the unknown, for it just might be clear
With a nod and a blink, there is never time
Conscious or subconscious, what an eye

It's called a dipolar God :grin:

The idea of superposition - that one thing could sort of be in two places at the same time - does not sit well with me. — Devans99

It should. And that's because consciousness and subconsciousness working together violates LEM.

Okay, let's philosophize. Let's begin with some existential/metaphysical questions:

How can you prove God doesn't exist when you can't even explain the nature of your own existence?

Mr. jorndoe, what is conscious existence? I'm a Christian Existentialist, if you haven't figured it out LOL.

And you are a what?

...any answers to that 180? Perhaps 260 proof would help...:grin:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it was Anselm who posited the Omni-stuff, as well as the ontological argument. In any case, I don't throw the baby out with the bathwater, I'm selective on what works and what doesn't work. Just read my profile LOL.