I didn't see anyone comment on this aspect/distinction/ item #2:

1. Proud of children, country, accomplishment's/self-esteem, etc.
2. Ego: exaggerated self worth.

Item two is also the one that is generally connected with the sin of pride... . For example; wars, violence, stubbornness, narcissism, et al..

Go educate yourself and only then is a conversation possible. — Artemis

Ad hominem : in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

Then learn something about philosophy instead of trolling and using words you don't understand.

Ad hominem : in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

quote="Artemis;343124"]you've somehow gained insight that has mysteriously eluded people with more education and experience than yourself.[/quote]

Ad hominem : in a way that is directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.

LOL

No I don't . And don't take this the wrong way, but your response proves my point of pointless arguments not addressing the existential issues at hand. Almost as pointless as the movie Forrest Gump (which was based on Existentialism).

Just kidding, it was a pretty good movie! LOL

that really just proves you wrong and solidifies the legitimacy of atheism. — Artemis

Actually just the opposite. Many of you just use ad hominem arguments when you find yourselves in a position of defending nothingness.

There are numerous existential questions/Kantian metaphysical questions, cognitive science/ phenomena, unresolved paradox, et al. that suggest deep mystery, Through conscious beings the universe has generated self-awareness. That can be no trivial detail, no minor byproduct of purposeless forces. All events must have a cause is, by pure definition of the words used, transcends logical and metaphysical necessity. Accordingly, I would suggest you yourself, read-up on your Kant's Critique of Pure Reason.

But back to politics and humor. I see the Atheist Ronald Reagan television ad running again talking about separation of church and state. That's good thing for sure, and we see what extremism can do in third world politics (ie: Syria has no separation of church/state), yet it's only a half-truth here in the US. It's funny, in our great country we have on our currency 'In God We Trust', seems like a paradox for you, no?

The point is, Reagan ends the ad by saying in close quotes "...this is Ronald Reagan, I'm an unabashed Atheist not afraid of burning in hell." That precisely feeds into the dysfunction/deficiencies or otherwise the pathological 'an axe to grind' that's been projected here by some... . Don't take my word for it, look at what Einstein suggests in the OP, you can't hear the Pythagoras "music of the spheres".

Otherwise how does one transcend, as Maslow once said "what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you"...

Not sure we have an answer do we(?)

Maybe if he was still alive I'd invite you to one of his seminars, then we could all have a good laugh together.

Heck, we might even have a group hug!

Not sure, ask Albert:

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=zO72UPUl&id=A56C942A39C81CB36A68D6AD278700321F3D0C5A&thid=OIP.zO72UPUlOM4LJkylwjVEZQHaHa&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fi2.kym-cdn.com%2fentries%2ficons%2foriginal%2f000%2f015%2f725%2furl-3-10tjli1.jpeg&exph=940&expw=940&q=albert+einstein&simid=608026377354808944&selectedIndex=0

If that makes you feel better!

LOL

I don't know what to tell you Artemis.

Your non-answers/ad hominem arguments speak for themselves.

That's why I use the word politics... .

B well.

Hey, thanks for the political statements!

But I did learn it. You read into something that wasn't there. I'm classically trained.

Sure it's an irrational leap. What's irrational in world..., until there are answer's to Existential questions rationality remains a mystery.

Thanks for your reply by the way!

Okay I take that as a no answer LOL

B well

Hi Atemis!

Thanks! I'm still wondering though, about this paradoxical conundrum of sorts ( metaphysical/consciousness) , perhaps you can help me with it (sorry for the redundancy):

I'm driving down the road, daydreaming, and have an accident and kill myself. Was it my subconscious or consciousness that caused that to happen?

And from the OP, what is this feeling known as Love, is that metaphysical you think?

Great questions...just for a starting point of discussion:

"Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religion John Hick[2] and William L. Rowe[3] distinguished the following three:

1.factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.
2.causal necessity (subsumed by Hicks under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it.
3.logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds."


Jorndoe, I look at things a little differently:

1. I think mathematics is a metaphysical language.
2. I think consciousness is a metaphysical thing.
3. I think language itself is a metaphysical thing.

Whether any of those exist in other possible worlds is not answerable. But what we do know, is that consciousness exists.

Feel free to parse and ponder

Oh okay no worries I understand.
LOL

I'm assuming that post was for Isaac (you had my name there...) ?

Otherwise, glad you joined Banno! I'm assuming you won't be able to answer any of those concerns?

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

1. Yes
2. No


A metaphysically spiritual/genderless ineffable Being? The only answer that makes the most sense relative to how you worded the question would be, NO. Unless you can explain, materially, our own conscious existence. But then, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right?

Truths do not exist, half truths do not exist


Are you sure? From the ideas set forth in the OP ( I apologize for some redundancy here), if I'm driving my car down the road daydreaming, have an accident and kill myself, was it my consciousness or subconsciousness that caused me to die?

Otherwise, you said, "Truth's do not exist" .... Say wha…???

And hey, I appreciate your commentary, thanks. Until humans can explain consciousness (which will never happen), then as you say, maybe we will all have more 'skin in the game'. On the other hand, it might just be the game changer! LOL

B well.

You can continue to ask "why?" to every explanation given, for ever. What's the point? — Isaac

Isaac, it's really really simple. I'm trying to understand how the Atheists account for existential questions.

I completely understand your frustration. They are simple questions, yet ironically not simple at all.

I can't possibly answer that question within the framework you've set up.

The frame work is Existentialism. It started in the Book of Ecclesiastes.

If I say I like the color green, I don't have to provide a reason why, it just is a feeling I have. — Isaac

Okay, so what is that feeling? Otherwise, can you describe the color green in an objective way that appeals to reason, or some universal truth?

It will not in any way have any bearing on the fact that I like green or am in pain. I can't alter that fact by any empirical investigation.

Okay, got that. but why wouldn't all humans like green, instead of some other color?

"Why?" just in general terms without any context is a nonsensical question, what could possibly constitute an answer other than the entire history of all reality? — Isaac

Sure, the 'whys' of existence are very perplexing. You've attempted some form of explanation that's making some progress, yet these very simple questions seem ironically nonsensical.

Does Atheism provide for such reasoning? You don't have to answer right now, but I would be interested in answers to the aforementioned questions, though, hence: "...they are important to me, as far as I can tell."

As far as you can tell, what?

You said atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. Then my question was why do you care to take a position on the subject. Unless I'm mistaken you replied with:

1. you don't care about other's beliefs with some exceptions
2. you very much care about you own beliefs
3. you seemingly enjoy defending those beliefs

But you haven't explained why you care about those things in themselves/to begin with(?) In other words, you're presuming those things are important for some reason, but you haven't explained the reason why, you yourself as a human being, care about those things.

But then, in your attempt to speak to that question you said: " It's useful for me to achieve the things I want to achieve. As to why it's useful, my guess is that the brain, being a machine of sorts, only works within certain parameters."

In making progress then with your guess in reasoning, the two-part question becomes: why do you then feel the need to 'achieve', and what 'parameters' are you referring to in the human brain?

atheism is nothing more than the lack of belief in god(s). — Isaac

We are talking past each other. Again, why do you care to take a position on the subject matter?

Another example, once again, you said:

It's a habit of thinking which I've learned and find useful. — Isaac

Why is that useful, for what purpose?

I care very much about my beliefs though — Isaac

Okay, take a deep breath, you haven't explained why you care about those beliefs?

For example, why would you care about inconsistencies?

....care about your Atheism v. Theism concerns?

Okay, let's be brutally honest with each other: why do you even care?

You said atheists aren't concerned about asking questions, and I said: Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

\

Hey 180, wow, now there's a novel proposition to parse:

"Theism is false, therefore god does not exist"

1. Is that what you believe?
2. If so, can you prove it to me?


tick tock tick tock

Your Interesting thought about drug induced mental phenomena, made me think of this study:

"IFAS researchers had dosed a total of 22 other men for the creativity study, including a theoretical mathematician, an electronics engineer, a furniture designer, and a commercial artist. By including only those whose jobs involved the hard sciences (the lack of a single female participant says much about mid-century career options for women), they sought to examine the effects of LSD on both visionary and analytical thinking. Such a group offered an additional bonus: Anything they produced during the study would be subsequently scrutinized by departmental chairs, zoning boards, review panels, corporate clients, and the like, thus providing a real-world, unbiased yardstick for their results."

"In surveys administered shortly after their LSD-enhanced creativity sessions, the study volunteers, some of the best and brightest in their fields, sounded like tripped-out neopagans at a backwoods gathering. Their minds, they said, had blossomed and contracted with the universe. They’d beheld irregular but clean geometrical patterns glistening into infinity, felt a rightness before solutions manifested, and even shapeshifted into relevant formulas, concepts, and raw materials."

"But here’s the clincher. After their 5HT2A neural receptors simmered down, they remained firm: LSD absolutely had helped them solve their complex, seemingly intractable problems. And the establishment agreed. The 26 men unleashed a slew of widely embraced innovations shortly after their LSD experiences, including a mathematical theorem for NOR gate circuits, a conceptual model of a photon, a linear electron accelerator beam-steering device, a new design for the vibratory microtome, a technical improvement of the magnetic tape recorder, blueprints for a private residency and an arts-and-crafts shopping plaza, and a space probe experiment designed to measure solar properties. Fadiman and his colleagues published these jaw-dropping results and closed shop."

"At a congressional subcommittee hearing that year, Sen. Robert F. Kennedy grilled FDA regulators about their ban on LSD studies: “Why, if they were worthwhile six months ago, why aren’t they worthwhile now?” For him, the ban was personal, too: His wife, Ethel, had received LSD-augmented therapy in Vancouver. “Perhaps to some extent we have lost sight of the fact that it”—Sen. Kennedy was referring specifically to LSD here—“can be very, very helpful in our society if used properly.”

Janus, notwithstanding the legitimate health concerns and/or side effects from foregoing study, my question is:

1. Consider the natural drugs the body produces: dopamine endorphins and serotonin.
2. Consider the aforementioned LSD drug induced experiment… .

Could there me more to the conscious mind than just things like eating, drinking, procreating, sleeping et al.?

Conversely, Is there a mystery at the end of the universe? If not, why not?

None of which are questions atheists do not ask, many of which are questions religions claim to answer.



Interesting...seems contradictory...what is causing your sense of wonder about these things?

Otherwise, in a failed attempt to speculate your situation, I'm left with the following quote from cognitive Science: 'What you are not, you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you'.

Be well.

Unless you mean consciousness is necessary for our world (or you've abandoned possible world semantics of modal logic) or something? — jorndoe

Hey jorn, that's a great question. I view consciousness as metaphysical necessity. I used the propositional example to demonstrate our sense of logical truth, or objective truth as it were.

In other words, consciousness and its primacy is required or needed to understand (apprehend) all forms of necessity and necessary truths, right?

Yeah TS, I'm on the fence about that distinction as well. I guess in Kant's mind, he was thinking that noumenon was the result of transcending phenomenon. And so the logic there is that noumenon would consist of Metaphysically independent existing things, if you will. I certainly get that possibility, from a cosmological standpoint.

In my mind, metaphysical things are simply that, parts of unexplained things that we wonder about. But when we talk about consciousness/causation in the physical world, we can't help but incorporate that kind of thinking...I suppose a materialist won't though...

(Otherwise I'm fine with thinking about consciousness phenomena as a metaphysical thing.)

Firstly, I appreciate you sharing that personal bit of info.

Secondly, unless I'm missing something, philosophically, my answer is real simple.

The nature of= Kantian things-in-themselves.

And oh by the way, don't you know kabasi is bad for you (reminds me of Pa.) LOL

True that! I think we will see a lot of' 'protest vote' choice/lesser of two evils kind of rationale at the voting booth, assuming he's not removed. Kind of like what a lot of Trumper's did in 2016 against Hillary. Problem is, many won't admit it...

But if it had then turned out that god did exist, that might make an enormous practical difference in how to live one's life, but it wouldn't change anything about any of that foregoing philosophy.

See what you guys think:

Consider a form of a Kierkegaardian irony. Say one is living an everyday ordinary 'life of striving' (a Maslowian phrase btw) feeling perfectly fine living single. Then that person, by happenstance, meets a girl/guy. That person then realizes things that they wouldn't have otherwise realized. And it could be a profound list of things ( some of which Pfhorrest mentioned)… .

Did feelings or the phenomenon of Love somehow cause that change in that person? I would argue that change can happen regardless through Revelation. Revealed mystical knowledge.

Rather than trying to talk about how some things might be similar, I was going for a recognition of a necessary truth itself.

Hey guys, as apposed to asking more questions, for the time being, here’s my short Metaphysical theory based upon the Kantian cosmological judgement: All events must have a cause:

Consider a necessary consciousness (some people say necessary Being):

A. There is at least one true proposition
B. That proposition is false.

Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call that proposition B. But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true.

It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

In an analogous way, how can a necessary (a priori) Being or consciousness be the first cause in a contingent deterministic world? A dipolar God could.

Consider the cosmological computer brain. The hardware is the fixed a priori thing-in-itself. The software is the deterministic cause and effect programing. That software represents free will, only in terms of the limited scope of computer program choices that are designed into it.

Feel free to parse and ponder

Sure, beyond the religious experience, only a God would know the nature of existence.

Absolutely; faith, hope and love!

But why not explore beyond the word 'god'? — ZzzoneiroCosm

Sure. In what way we you thinking, a philosophical way? For example, a transcendental inquiry of some sort?

Or , more from a cognitive science point of view (?).