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

I take it there is some sort of acquiescence by silence?

Or, since you couldn't provide an answer, you got nothing? Gee, well, something exists!! LOL

Have you ever heard the term 'dipolar' God? Theoretical physicist Davies argues that in his book the Mind of God. It combines logical necessity with contingency. An unchanging timeless being (required for the notion of what caused the Big Bang/what was God doing prior to it) combined with openness and freedom of say, QM or quantum physics (double slit experiment, etc.).

It's not the same as complete chaos. It provides for structured randomness in nature, along with the logical necessity of physical existence. It is intriguing when analogized with Wheeler's game of 20-questions. It seems to imply a participatory anthropic universe (PAP/intelligence) based on our asking the right questions. Kind of like the cosmological computer brain. Depending on what questions we Google, we will only get that which we ask.

The power of jargon is limited, as its use should be. Legal jargon may serve in communications with other lawyers and with judges, but must be explained to clients and others (e.g., jurors) who are encompassed by and function in the legal system. Indulge me, and explain just what you think "material agency" to be. — Ciceronianus the White

Oh yes grasshopper, it's called philosophical Materialism 101.

Material things may be involved in such an interaction, but value is in the interaction, not in the person or material thing which interact. — Ciceronianus the White

It's not whether they 'may be involved'. They ARE involved; no escape, as it were.

I venture to hope you acknowledge there's a difference of some kind between a woman and a cheeseburger. — Ciceronianus the White

Of course there is. Again, you are not reading what I'm saying. Did I ever make them (material and mental agency) mutually exclusive?

Why not just acknowledge that's the case, and that our interaction with and perception of other living organisms differ from our interactions with inanimate objects because they're significantly different in various respects, and that's why it's improper to treat a woman as a cheeseburger? There would be no need then to "escape from the world of objects" or any other world, for that matter. — Ciceronianus the White

You keep getting hung-up on this dichotomization, and the stereotypical (pathological/dysfunctional) definition of objectification. Not sure what to tell you there. I still recommend study of the philosophy of aesthetics...honestly, it would do you a world of good... .

Of course. That is one reason I embrace Panentheism, where timelessness and temporality are folded into one entity.

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

We could also add St Thomas Aquinas's 3rd of 5 ways to prove the existence of God. He assumed in his argument that the axiom: ‘can’t get something from nothing’ holds - an assumption that is supported by the law of conservation of energy.

This assumption leads to the conclusion that something must have permanent existence, IE if the universe was ever in a state of nothingness, then ‘can’t get something from nothing’ implies it would still be in a state of nothingness today - so something must have permanent existence. But time has a start so nothing can exist permanently in time, so the rejection of creation ex nilhilo leads us to the same conclusion - something timeless and permanent must exist outside of spacetime. — Devans99

Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent.

Our perceptions of the world are probably similar — tim wood

I remind myself that my perceptions of the world are nor more nor less than my perceptions of the world. — tim wood

...and so your perceptions of the world are based upon conscious existence, right?. How are they similar, in what way? For instance, similar, in that consciousness emerged from chaos?

This thread isn't a poll/vote, so we kind of expect a bit more than just "I agree".
You agreeing doesn't make it so. — jorndoe

Mmmm, let's see, I agree with Devon here ( I can add at least a dozen or so existential and/or metaphysical phenomena if that helps you):

1. The argument from causality is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
2. The fact that time has a start is strongly suggestive of a timeless first cause
3. The Big Bang sure looks like it was caused by something intelligent
4. The fact the universe is not in equilibrium implies a permanent, intelligent, presence
5. The fine tuning argument is strongly suggestive that intelligence is behind the universe.

So what can a betting man do?

Quick question first: If I present to you a scientific theory that describes exactly how this happens, would you accept that the laws being as they are does not necessitate an intelligent creator? — Kenosha Kid

Yes, please provide a ToE or otherwise your theory of causation!!

Doesn't really matter because you are confusing how things are thought and thought of, with how they are. — tim wood

Really? Please share your thoughts on the differences between our perceptions of the world, and what the world really is?

Cause and effect is a vestige of Kantian thought. Today it's a convenient fiction, and known and understood to be such because there are better ways to think of these things. — tim wood

Baloney. The Kantian 'all events must have a cause' is a synthetic judgement that is used in almost all of theoretical physics. Is it "fiction" that you have that innate sense of wonderment from your conscious existence?

You, of course, may believe that what we think of women and how we conduct ourselves towards them is a question of aesthetics — Ciceronianus the White

No. I'm saying that you are denying the value that is associated with material agency.

I'm arguing that a woman is not a car. Must I consider her a car in order to know what is truly the case? Would I do so if I had studied aesthetics? — Ciceronianus the White

(Then why did you use a cheeseburger as an argument to make your point? ) If you studied aesthetics, you would recognize that objects provide for material agency judgements.

Likewise, a human object provides for both material and mental agency judgements. You're implying they are mutually exclusive. I've never said that. I've been making the point that not only are we unable to escape that physical human phenomena and/or sensory experience, we don't consider it for what it is (in both male/female) as a value judgement; something virtuous to the human condition. You seem to be stuck in the stereotypical definition (pathological/dysfunctional) of objectification of humans... .

In any of these cases, it could simply be beauty is learned — schopenhauer1

Beauty is both subjective and objective phenomena.

I'm not sure how attachment theory has as much to do with it. Perhaps it can relate to how one functions in a relationship.. but not sure. — schopenhauer1

Cognitive attachment-theory posits that the material agency has value in aesthetic judgements. So the question is, why does one love the object-baby when it first comes out of the womb? You can't love it's Platonic mind/mental agency can you?

As I stated, it's not the libido itself that is cultural, but what it's directed towards perhaps. "This is what one finds attractive. That is not, unless you like unattractive things.." etc. — schopenhauer1

What it's directed at is the object, right?

I just don't think Platonic ideas have to do with it much. It is almost an abuse of language to say the symmetry in math is like the symmetry in a face or a body, etc. — schopenhauer1

Platonism is different than the Plato's view of aesthetics. He suggested inner beauty, or in our discussion here, mental agency over material agency. (Material agency being subordinate to mental agency.) The spin-off is the metaphorical beauty found in other mental aspects of life; like beauty in the harmony of a mathematical formula (which is ironically an objective truth), and other subjective mental activities associated with the virtues of mind and cognition.

Do I need one? Why? I may have a causal definition of existence. If I had an existential definition of causation, I'd be going round in circles. — Kenosha Kid

Not sure you've answered my question there... , are you saying that you would be going around in circles anyway? If the Big Bang had no causation, what are you left with?

Maybe the more obvious question would be, why are there laws of physics/patterns in the universe v. the unrestricted chaos of a lawless universe?

The emergence of conscious beings suggest you need a causal definition of existence, no?. Otherwise, it seems as though you are regurgitating a type of negative-theological version of the ontological argument; 'God didn't do it cause I said so'. I'm curious, where is your 2+2=4 in your argument that God does not exist?

Not really, there is a lot of data available for quantum weirdness.... — A Seagull

Not sure I'm following you there. For instance, take emergence or panentheism for example, how are life and mind irrelevant to the structure of the universe, or are they central to it?

Is the nature of reality revealed by the bizarre laws of quantum mechanics? According to quantum theory, before the observation is made, a subatomic particle exists in several states, called a superposition (or, as Wheeler called it, a ‘smoky dragon’). Once the particle is observed, it instantaneously collapses into a single position.

Is no phenomenon a real phenomenon until it is an observed phenomenon? If so, how did consciousness emerge without causation?

I do not believe in God, therefore I do not believe that God caused everything." That logic is correct. — Kenosha Kid

KK!

Interesting. Let's parse that one a bit more. Two thoughts come to mind here:

1. Are you saying God caused something- just not everything?
2. What is your existential definition of Causation?

Do you think if boys were exposed to more discussion about breasts as associated with female agency instead of as objects, it might change the way they relate to them? Or do you think that threatens your freedom to objectify the female body if you choose to? — Possibility

Possibility!

You have to curb your appetite for dichotomizing. Remember that human's have both mental and material agency. You seem fixated on the mental, as if there is no aesthetic phenomenon to provide for not only the appreciation of same, but to provide for the proper volition. If your daughter wanted to marry a guy with missing teeth, who was 400 lbs., had bad hygiene, but was a doctor, kind, and considerate, what kind of dilemma would that present? You are forced to consider both features of human existence.

The heathy view, in your quoted scenario, would be to teach the child the value of both aesthetic beauty, along with the existential and social implications, including the ethical and intellectual considerations (i.e., Aristotle's theory of human nature) not to mention revelations applicable to cognitive science, human needs and motivations.

Instead, you seem hung-up on the stereotypical definition of objectification. That seems to only serve as a divisive political narrative between the sexes, as apposed to a glass half-full higher reaches of human nature approach. In other words, is your approach to admonish the child and make him/her feel embarrassed or in some way repressive about their appreciation of material agency?

one of the great mysteries of life.
2h — A Seagull

Sure. No different than say, quantum mechanics, double-slits, and other observed phenomena... .

Yes. A car IS an object - it has no agency, so whether you treat it with care or not is not the issue. A woman, however is a human being, and so expects to be treated as someone who has a right to choose the way that she interacts with you. When you fail to do that, you objectify her. — Possibility

The car has material agency, hence, so does the woman (and man).

We escape the world of material objects and associated judgements by recognising agency where it exists. — Possibility

But how do we escape material agencies?

Aesthetic appreciation can be achieved without denying agency, without objectifying. — Possibility

I would suggest rephrasing that to say 'without denying mental agency.'

That you know that, and simply choose to ignore, it is objectification. — Possibility

It's not that one is choosing to ignore it, it's that one is choosing to acknowledge both mental and material agency.

With all due respect, your argument is not coherent. You may want to study, say, theoretical physics a bit more.

Otherwise, Paul Davies, Roger Penrose, John Wheeler, are some a good resources there.

LOL

Exactly. That's seemingly what Kenosha Kid is arguing LoL

is the whole of you argument "God did it"? — Banno

Is the whole of your argument God didn't do it?

I agree with Devon's ...nothing more to say is there?

Yep, I spoke with God yesterday, and he told me that your level of ignorance is a little bit higher than mine. But I told him that I would pray for you.

That's what happens when you troll threads my friend LoL

I agree with the OP!

YOu have changed the subject - again. Go back to the OP and address that. — Banno

We're talking about causation, numbnuts LoL

At least pretend to some intellectual honesty. — Banno

What does " intellectual honesty " mean? How do you know I'm being dishonest?

Surely you're not trolling this thread are you? Now that I think about it, that might be a good definition of intellectual dishonesty LoL.

Does that include atheism, as a religion?
LOL

That's a variant of the same fallacious argument: "God caused everything, you don't believe in God, therefore you don't believe in causation." — Kenosha Kid

Okay. Here's your argument: " God did not cause everything and I don't believe in God therefore I don't believe in causation". Is that logic correct?

is a fallacy that I can reject a silly theory only if I have a good one. It isn't true. I can reject a silly theory — Kenosha Kid

Interesting, so you can easily reject two plus two equals five, because you know that two plus two equals four. So please tell us then, where is your two plus two equals four in this context?

what science is all about. — Kenosha Kid

And what does physical science say?

theory is that self-awareness did not evolve from a piece of wood. For a start, a piece of wood cannot procreate. — Kenosha Kid

What caused consciousness then (what theory do you have)?

If you do not believe in God, you must disbelieve in conscious existence!" That's the gist of it, right — Kenosha Kid

No; you clearly seem to be saying you don't believe in causation and therefore causation doesn't exist. So you seem to be saying something is silly for no reason. In other words, you don't have any theory to support your disbelief.

With all due respect CW you are simply regurgitating the ethical, pathological, and/or dysfunctional stereotypes or stereotypical definition of objectification.

In fact, you provided no insight on how to escape from the phenomenon of the physical world in which we live, or said another way, the escape from the experiencial world of physics. For example, you had to default to a cheeseburger (to describe/explain your argument) which is in fact a physical object, correct? Thus using your metaphor of the cheeseburger, the burger is experienced as aesthetically unpleasing or pleasing, regardless. Those are physical attributes you experienced.

And so we make judgments about aesthetics whether it's objects without a consciousness or objects with consciousness. Male, female, dog, cat, tiger, house, car, clothing, etc. Why would you choose a yellow car over a red car, why would you choose a colonial house over a contemporary rancher, ad nauseum. You make judgments about objects you see through your sense experience.

Your argument seems to be that if I treat my car badly, and don't maintain it properly, that I've objectified the car. What if I treat the car the opposite; wash and wax it, change the oil regularly, keep it clean, etc.? Have I still objectified it?

I ask once again, how do we escape our world of material objects and associated judgments? ( Please don't take this the wrong way but I have to ask you, have you studied the philosophy of aesthetics?)

Which is again a creationist's anthropocentric view: I am here, therefore it must all be for me. Meanwhile the universe seems quite ambivalent about us. I would actually agree that if the purpose of the universe was to create life, an intelligent creator would be likely. But since there's no evidence or reason for it other than to console the egos of some hairless apes, we need not consider it. — Kenosha Kid

What is your view (biocentric/ecocentric)? Cosmologically, do you have a theory about what was happening before the Big Bang ( a timeless first-cause)?

Or would you fall under, say, the Materialist/Reductionist camp-I'm just throwing that out? If so, what is your theory about how self-awareness evolved from a piece of wood?

Also, in an ethical way, how would you square objectification of men/women in a strictly materialistic sense (one of many questions of course, but since the objectification thread is active, it made me think of it...)? Meaning, I believe you have the burden of precluding conscious existence from the human condition/equation, no?

Do you have any opposing theories to anthropomorphic... ?

Sorry, no. I'm saying that if we accept your definitions, we can't escape it. — Ciceronianus the White

How can we escape it then?

Why wouldn't we objectify an object if we have a non-aesthetical experience? It's still an experience of an object, no? — Ciceronianus the White

Great point! Are you then admitting that we cannot escape it?

A wolf-whistle is a rude & crude way of complimenting an attractive woman on her sex appeal. And some self-confident women seem to accept such boorish behavior as a positive ego-boosting comment. But for many women, objectification by an unknown male could be perceived as an implicit threat, or a sign of dominance. — Gnomon

That's why rape, by conquering armies, has been so common. Most "nice young men", in their own society, would not think of raping a woman. But the anonymity of war, and the absence of male protectors, allows them to commit unconscionable acts of violence ("booty", in ancient times; "war crimes", in enlightened modern political parlance). — Gnomon

Gnomon! Indeed, that's human pathological/existential phenomena that Possibily and Willow are underscoring (which is the popular objectification definition)... .

What more is there to debate? — Ciceronianus the White

Not exatcly sure what you are asking CW, but there seems like there are two components then:

The aesthetical experience, and the non-aesthetical experience, right?

Well, I don't necessarily buy into Schop's or Plato's idea that beauty is some non-material Platonic ideal that is sussed out when presented with art/nature. I think a lot of its origins is cultural-based as to what counts as beauty. — schopenhauer1

It's not a dichotomization, of course. Plato did just that though, by, in paraphrase, introducing the idea of 'inner beauty' in this case. Then the arguments/metaphors follow, like; the beauty of mathematics, the beauty of truth, the beauty of the mind/inner beauty, etc..

Similarly

but again, it's the attraction to these aspects that is the mystery. Is it that it is the "other"? Or is it perhaps more culturally ingrained? — schopenhauer1

Of course I don't think it's cultural. Using the cognitive science example of the attachment-theory, it's an innate feature of consciousness (I.E., Baby sees mom, mom leaves baby, baby cries.) Same when a new-born comes out of the womb. Everyone say's how beautiful it is (the object itself), without any 'real' Platonic inner beauty/intellectual connection.

So perhaps this kind of attraction or beauty is much more cultural than we think. — schopenhauer1

Nope, don't believe so. I don't think rubrics have any bearing on sexual attraction in human's. The Eros phenomenon is alive and well. I suppose in theory, if we were brains in a jar perhaps we would make distinctions between brain-size, shape, and other aesthetic features of same. But in principle, all we would have there is the Platonic inner-beauty to work with... .

The sexual libido learns by society what is proper to associate one's desires for. As I stated earlier, society needs sexual relations to function a certain way and regulated to make procreation happen. Sexual attraction may be all a part of this narrative — schopenhauer1

Existentially, the rubrics of society has very little impact. You would have to explain why human's masturbate. Alternatively, one would have to explain why people are born with either homosexual or heterosexual tendencies. But in either case, what you have is a something that's intrinsic and innate viz the need to procreate (masturbation) along with the physical object which is the desired means to an end, (at least initially-love at first sight, infatuation, etc.).

Perhaps I am totally wrong though, and it's all evolution all the way down.. — schopenhauer1

I think that's where some of the reality exists. Only in that its innate to the species. Otherwise one would have to explain how sexual attraction evolved both physically and metaphysically. In other words, with some exceptions of course, there is a stick and a hole, along with some Platonic realm and other cognitive phenomena at work (Love). And I don't think either one of those have really changed much, meaning, as self-aware conscious beings, cognitive science has taken us all the way up to the theory of Love, which is where the mystery ends... .

That's what I'm getting with my posts to Possibility and 3027amen.. How much of this is cultural.. and how much of it is due to very ingrained cultural ideas (stuck in there somewhere back in time...)? — schopenhauer1

It's not cultural, as much as it's Existential. You should know better Schop1 :yikes:

How can we escape the world of aesthetic experiences?

Objectification isn't about obtaining economic or social value. It's about the relationship of an individual's agency and will to how others treat them. — TheWillowOfDarkness

That's not what Possibility suggested. She suggested stripper's engage in such activity to obtain economic and social value.

If you wish to underscore the dysfunctional/pathological aspect of Objectification, you may do so; no exceptions taken. However, you must make the distinction between material agency and mental agency.