"So, (2) indicates that there is no ultimate meaning,"



Hey Poetic, wanted to give you some love over here.

Couple quick thoughts on meaning:

1. I think of meaning as a deterministic cosmic computer [our brains] that transcends its own capabilities. Meaning its not binary, its both A and B working simultaneously. That idea, in effect, would cause the computer to crash or lock-up. In effect then, we have thus fallen and can't get up LOL. So in an anthropomorphic way, we are barred from 'perfect' knowledge. We can build computers; not humans with a conscious mind. Lack of that 'complete' meaning and knowledge then leaves us with a sense of wonder.

2. Wonderment. What is that ? Why do we wonder? For example, why does science insist on saying: all events must have a cause?

So two points; how does consciousness work, and how does wonderment distinguish us from lower life forms (?)

You said : "Atheists are simply on the opinion, or belief, that there is no god or gods."

So what is your belief or opinion based upon?

I understand you are frustrated, but this has been the point from the beginning. I am attempting to make you think about those existential questions using your logic.

Let me help you. Your response should be something like..'....based upon this, that, and the other analogy from science, psychology, philosophy, et.al., I have reasonably concluded God does not exist.'

Thus far, I have not read anything from you that provides logical justification for your belief system.

Your answers do not describe things in themselves. In other words, they do not provide any meaning to the nature of our existence.

"None of these have to do with theism or atheism."

Yes they do. They are Existential analogies to highlight your flawed logic.

They are important questions that have puzzled philosophers throughout the years. And no one has yet answered those.

So it begs the question, if Atheism can't answer those deep, pragmatic questions of existence, how can it prove that God doesn't exist?

A pretty simple point, no?

...sure...an unchanging Being in a deterministic/contingent world is not logically possible (but neither are my questions sort of speak).


Thus:

1. If TW of D is God, he/she can answer my questions.
2. He/She cannot answer my questions.
3. Therefore, he/she is not God.

What explanatory power could "God did it" or "My religion says so" ever have in this context?



Are you trying to use a priori logic to 'disprove' God's existence? Of course that's a rhetorical question...

I would think in your case, Apophatic theology, would be a more intellectual approach. Or harder yet, inductive reasoning, I'm thinking would likely pose more hurdles for the positive Atheist I'm sure.

Otherwise what I'm hearing you say is Fundamentalism v. Atheism all over again. No?

I'm desperately trying to make sense out of your logic. Thus far this is what you're leaving me with:

1. If Artemis is God, she can answer my questions.
2. She cannot answer my questions.
3. Therefore, she is not God.

Absurd?

I'm asking you direct questions. And you are politically deflecting them.

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.)

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

No, I'm listening, waiting, and excited that you might be able to explain how the human consciousness and subconsciousness work together?

Or how about question number 2. Love. Is that easier?

I'm waiting... ? Do you think GMBAA could explain it better?

Robert, with respect to one of your questions, I could be wrong, but it appears Atheism has no answer/explanation for these questions/phenomena occurring in life:

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie. (True or False.)

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

I'm sorry you want to end the debate. I'm expecting you, as an Atheist who's values logic, would be able explain them. In keeping with the OP, is this one deficiency?

Are you acquiescing to the unexplained?

1. I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying(?).
2. What is Love?
3. This statement is a lie.

Can you explain at least one of these please? (Are these deficiencies in Atheism?)

What is Love?

Actually, I did, and you're just refusing to engage it. That not only shows you've lost the argument, but that you're kind of a bad (and impolite) interlocutor. "



I'll keep asking you to prove your point. How does consciousness and subconsciousness work together, as you keep saying. Please tell everyone. tick tock tick tock

Ok, then answer this: did my consciousness daydream or my subconsciousness daydream, while driving the car?
— 3017amen

I answered that: probably a bit of both. They work together



But how?

We are waiting for both of you to prove something, but you got nothing. Your logic could not answer those questions. Mmmmmmm, sounds like Atheism isn't as logical as you thought, no?

Ok, then answer this: did my consciousness daydream or my subconsciousness daydream, while driving the car?

That's not a statement, it's a question.


1. This statement is a lie.

Is that better?

Probably a bit of both. "



How does that work? Both suggests P and -P.

I must be mistaken...

That's not a paradox. It just means one of them is mistaken or lying. "



Oh I see.

1. Is this statement a lie?

Consciousness and subconsciousness are as non-contradictory as a duck swimming on a lake. The legs are moving, but you can't see them, all you see is the body. It's still a unified whole. "



Are you sure? When a person daydreams while driving, causing a crash, how does that happen?

Was their subconscious daydreaming, or was it their conscious?

I am riled. I don't like to argue with blind fanatics who lose sight of logic, reason, and civility when they engage in their most sacred subject. "



Are you sure? No one can seem to resolve this paradox, using your logic:

Socrates: " What Plato is about to say is false."
Plato: "Socrates has just spoken truly."

Which statement is true?

Are you angry now?

You're using rationalism to disprove EOG no?

And self reference unresolved paradox exists yes?

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no?
— 3017amen

No.


Really, please explain consciousness then LOL

We're waiting????

A prori proofs only exist in atheist thinking when the atheist points at bible self-contradictions. In a way, the bible says "X is X and not X", and the astute atheist only has to have a superficial reading and he can point these a priori falsehoods out.



You're using rationalism to disprove EOG no?

And self reference unresolved paradox exist yes?

Or there could be a metaphysical logic ( only concept that makes sense there) that exists in the form of a novel formula.

P and-p describes how consciousness and subconsciousness works together no?

Wow, that's progress! So 1. You're saying is true. Can you tell me why you are wondering that?

Lol on the Kantian joke :)

Artemis, have you read alcontali's Philosophy of Mathematics link? What do you think?

How do you know pink unicorns don't exist in some other world?

Ok, using your logic, which statement do you believe is true:

1. All events must have a cause
2. This statement is a lie

Arguing against logic using logic will inevitably lead to the equivalent of saying "this sentence is a lie."


Artemis! Are you saying that there is unresolved paradox in the world?

Why would you say such a thing?

Two quick thoughts:

1. If humans were not selfish, would we still procreate?

2. The law of contracts, promise for a promise, assumes two parties benefit.

Since we are self-directed individuals by nature, why not embrace that; not hedonism.

"We assume so many things, and we simply cannot explain why we do that. "


My thoughts exactly. And I was already thinking about mathematics and abstract concepts. Nobody knows why they are so effective in cosmology and science, yet we just assume...………what?

"There is nothing more stupid than attacking a system merely because it ultimately rests on unexplained beliefs, given the fact that all systems are like that, including logic itself. "


Indeed! I too, don't understand that rationale. I mean, there is plenty in the world that is unexplainable...including our own conscious existence. There does seem to be some commonalities though:

Fundamentalism: condemnatory extreme
Atheism (positive): condemnatory extreme

Since we're talking about 'deficiencies', it's certainly ok to critique things. In the alternative, I would think Agnosticism would be more of an 'intellectual' pursuit than positive Atheism and/or extreme Fundamentalism.

In other words, if all one is doing is attacking the Ontological argument, that's really not too smart.

What do the Atheist's think about Taoism?

Human condition: being and becoming, growth, emotionality, aspiration, conflict, striving, temporalness, faith, interconnectiveness, consciousness, pacifism, wonderment, spirituality, finitude, sickness, mortality so on and so forth.

"...pernicious."



Here in America I don't think the term pernicious is completely accurate. Christian philosophy would suggest the opposite. Generally speaking Christian philosophy heloed to make America value freedom of choice, the Golden rule, Christmas and Thanksgiving, virtuous ethical practices (OT Wisdom Books) and other virtuous teachings of Jesus..

However that doesn't mean the Bible is free from error. Early church politics; interpretation issues, translations, lost Gospels, and all the rest still doesn't mean one should throw the baby out with the bathwater. Accordingly, the Book tips the scales in favor of thought provoking goodness.

Beyond that it leaves unanswered existential questions. One might then ask : What does atheism have to offer? Freedom to choose nihilism?

Does the paradigm of meaninglessness help the human condition?

"...exist a solution to our human predicament via a valid reconciliation towards mortality serves to further undermine the credibility of the atheistic claim to ultimately being rationally based."



1. Fundamentalism primarily uses philosophical rationalism to justify their belief.
2. Atheism primarily uses philosophical rationalism to justify their belief.

Instead of using rationalism or a priori logic, I think the smarter person or more intuitive person will use inductive reasoning in order to tip the scales in favor of a Deity.

The obvious deficiency of positive Atheism is that it's just another dogmatic religious paradigm.

"Newton contributed nothing"

I think that sums it up Poetic! Unless I am missing something, my propsitions remain largely unanswered. But that's ok. The tree of life and knowledge had suggested that.

(Like you, I want to respect the original OP about the Trinity, unless you'd like to start another thread...).

Sounds like you're experiencing a bit of existential angst. Accordingly, it's okay to take the leap of faith.

Kind of like what Kierkegaard / Pascal advocated...