Then Love would be illogical in your definition. Because for that statement to be formally logical it would have to be 100% objective. Formal Logic does not consider Psychological phenomenon or the nature of a thing.

It would then follow that your nature may be ' illogical' (from a formal logic point of view) in your attempt to explain the love phenomena.

Regarding positive Atheism and proof, I thought you [like other's in your faith-sorry that's the only word that makes sense see below], believed that God doesn't exist?

Otherwise, to make logical sense of Atheism, you would have to be completely silent on the matter, and make no statements of truth about a God's existence.

I could stand corrected, but that's what my logic is telling me.

You said..."belief without reason..." what do you mean by that? Do you have any examples to make that clearer?

Thanks for your interpretation of Love. So are you saying it's a half-truth? If so, that would defy the law of non-contradiction.

...sure I get that! Aside from the various concepts of Christian Revelation/consciousness & phenomena, one can think of it another way if you will:

Anytime you encounter things that seemingly are not true, illogical or half-truth's, including ineffable experiences and the like you've subsequently encountered a sense of wonder. (Do lower life forms need a sense of wonder, or self-awareness to survive, or is it instinct and survival of the fittest? My view is that it's another metaphysical 'extra' , abstract feature like math and musical ability. Another question altogether of course.)

But back to half-truth's. I use the word 'mottled' because in logic that's a synonymous concept for things that are half-true (breaks the rule of non-contradiction). And so my theory is, since Jesus was recorded in history as being 'half man half God', it's not such a ginormous leap to infer that particular concept of God is real.

Excellent point, could not agree more with your analysis there!

I'll take a stab at your OP though, a metaphysical proposition:

The concept of God is a mottled color of truth.

That 'nature' or description can be inferred from the Christian God. Meaning, Jesus had a human conscious. Our consciousness is not logical (finite).

So the question for Atheists is how do they know the truth that the Christian God did not exist?

Here's a thought provoking phenom of sorts. It relates to the math/music interval known as the devil's interval. Which, is a third up, but of course a flat 5th away from tonic.

Here's the sort short irony:

"The number three is used in the Torah to mediate between two opposing or contradictory values. The third value mediates, reconciles, and connects the two. Three is the number of truth."

All that makes me think of the survival value of music. It's proof again that Darwinism has holes. But it begs a salient point/question: why were we born with knowledge of dissonance and/or tension and relief (like root and fifth)?

Sounds have certain 'procreation' benefit to animals of course, yet I believe even animals don't even like dissonance... .

Interesting I thought….

Yes I know thank you for that.

The gradation of truth relative to the existence of things viz. logic and reasoning I think, presents important parallel's to life on earth.
I am a Christian Existentialist as you may/may not know, and though I don't focus on the existential angst of things, in this thread I wish to use other phenomena to draw these parallels.

Also, I am making a case for the Atheist who believes everything is perfectly logical, thus denies the possibility of Deity in 'their faith'.

And so on a humanist-relatable scale, let's briefly look at other conscious phenomena that I think is analogous, for example:

Is Love an objective or subject truth?

(Is that analogous to the aforementioned example of the color of the apple? Meaning is that a metaphorical 'mottled' color?)

I would also welcome an Atheist to parse that one for me.

Sure! I hope it's lucid enough for me to contribute.

I think we would agree that we wouldn't know the nature of its existence in any case, whether it's spinning or not.

However we would get closer to its truth value ( it's features) if it stopped.

In addition to the mystery associated with the observation of things that you posited, consider this logical conundrum:

This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is motled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:

This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence. However, this is only a partial rejection of these laws because P is only partially true. If P were 100% true, not-P would be 100% false, and there is no contradiction because P and not-P no longer holds.

So in 'practical terms' in our everyday-ness when we simply utter phrases like 'l don't know if that is true or false' , we are similarly in a state of contingency about our observations.

All of this, including your analysis suggests a high degree of uncertainty right?

Gotcha, ok part of that is pretty straightforward and it begs a couple quick follow-up questions:

What if the spinning ball appeared grey, are you certain there is no mystery as to it's true color?

Case in point, I'm assuming you would simply default to logical inference in the absence of having the ability to stop the spinning ball to observe it, right?

And if you choose logical inference (or otherwise known as inductive reasoning) to describe the existing thing, you would have to concede there is no 100% certainty, right?

...please see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/6574/life-and-existence-logical-or-illogical-or-both-or-something-else

https://steemit.com/psychology/@charlie777pt/part-2-the-short-history-of-existentialism-v-humanistic-existentialists-abraham-maslow

Daniel please take an opportunity to read through the above information before we proceed. It's sounding like you're mistaken about Maslow.

I hope that will help you understand a little more about your initial concerns with ' facts'.

Accordingly, I would be interested in approaching this from an empirical/psychological point of view rather than an extraneous philosophical one (from which I think you're associating 'facts'). To that end, Maslow you will find, combines the two in his theories about your thread topic of : life and meaning... .

Otherwise, which philosopher and Philosophy are you trying to draw from? Arestolian ethics? Kantian ethics... ??

By the way I'm a Christian Existentialist

Interesting so you agree that life , (the nature of existing things) is illogical ? Or maybe define what you mean by illusion.

Just so I'm clear, I would be happy to start another thread if your position is that this life is completely logical with no mysteries.

I'll take the challenge and debate this with you further for sure. But real quickly, what if the apple that was painted red/green as you say, is spinning. How would we know it's truth? Would it be a different color while it's spinning?

Thank you for that...I didn't want to get into any Dualism debate either.

Anyway, just another little detour of sorts. I'm liking the all the discussion thus far... !!!!

It's been awhile since I studied all the various forms of formal/modal logic, but from memory, when it comes to human condition kinds of things (AKA consciousness and perception) you have to drop the law of excluded middle.

For instance when something is perceived it is both object-ive and subject-ive, like it normally is perceived. It is computed in our consciousness as a mix of both. Meaning, during our normal cognitive thinking process it's not a simple 50-50 split; it might be a gradation of the two where it's .333 subjective and .667 objective, or the opposite, et.al . Like playing and listening to music. (Or experiencing the phenomena of Love.)

On a human scale, it's related to blending the dichotomy instead of defaulting to either A or B. Maslow and Kierkegaard talk extensively about how living life is A and B; not A or B. Of course there are always exceptions. But unfortunately we are taught that living life should be either/or.

Anyway my layman's take on it. And if that makes sense, it follows that we are an illogical mix of things.

And that goes back to why deductive logic (the ontological argument) doesn't work for both sides. Question is how do we proceed?

Okay are you seeing that gradations of Truth from consciousness is illogical in the sense of defying the law of contradiction, yet normal? Could we argue the same when humans say I don't know or they are undecided about a proposition?

After all building a computer doesn't have a middle ground, and if it does it will lock up.

Gradations of objective and subjective truths I submit, breaks the rule yet happens all the time in our cognition.

Or back to your consciousness; gradations of subconscious and conscious cognition?

In any event I apologize you said you have other tools available to you to test the hypothesis of the existence of God can you please share those?

I suppose all roads will lead back to deductive reasoning not helping the atheist support their belief. It's inductive reasoning that is more compelling....and make the debate more meaningful for both sides.

Love takes two
two becomes one
While crowds say three
We still lift thee

Giving numbers are you
Stealing them a crime
Allow the passage of time
For love to be true

Ok it does sound like you're on the fence.

You can't decide if it's A or B, you're in the middle as it were. Are you breaking that rule?

If not, sounds like subjective experiences are real to people nonetheless.

Go forward go forward, have no tear
For without illumination one has fear

So it sounds like you don't really know then right?

Ok we're getting closer I think but I want to understand:

A voice like God spoke to me last night. Is that true or false? Is it both a subjective and objective truth?

What I'm saying is false. Is that true?

Are religious experiences a subjective truth then?

LOL... Thanks to Artemis for that lucid example.

Ok, so was it true you were driving or true you were not driving, while computing math in your mind?

All I saw was you driving. Is that some sort of subjective truth or something only you experience?

In a similar or somewhat related vein, what do you think about the 'escoteric nature' apart from lower species about why we wonder, including laughter? Is this also a form of metaphysical or abstract cognition of some sort?

I'm having a hard time connecting the dots to that having survival value from the laws of natural selection/survival of the fittest... .

I suspect you as well, may have struggled with that connection.

Sure Taoism is alive and well viz. Yin-Yang.

Did you know that you yourself are illogical? Think about the fact that you can drive a car and negotiate turns, navigate through traffic while computing 2 + 2=4 (among other things) in your mind and not crash.

Are you not simultaneously doing two things at one time defying the formal rules of logic?

Well thank you kindly for the gracious compliment I'm not worthy.

On the other hand poetic universe inspires me every time I read his poems... !!

You'll be fine here on this forum!

Daniel first of all you may want to seriously consider, as well as define the concept of ' facts'.

Many psychologists turned philosophers like Maslow, basically take their couch sessions and turn them into theories of human nature. So in that case you have an experienced philosopher instead of a so-called theoretical philosopher.

Maslow being a glass half-full positive thinking psychologist-philosopher, recognized a lot of positive things about the human condition. It is very hard to argue that humans don't seek higher levels of consciousness subsequent to their basic needs.

Case in point why are you asking about the meaning of life? Why do you care?

Are your basic needs met?

...in fareness to others on the forum, as well as the forum itself, that defensiveness and/or anger is unfortunately a microcosm of where much of society seems to be... . There are a lot of angry people out there.

Obviously there are numerous reasons for that, self-awereness and Freudian ego probably topping the list. The current political environment too.

Aristotle said (in paraphrase) the greatest gift we could give to ourselves is to 'know thyself'.
The lack thereof could speak to some of your concern...

Just curious, are you absolutely sure that things seemingly illogical are useless?

Life is both a discovery and uncovery of Being. Have you studied AH Maslow?

Maureen, if I read you correctly, I would caution you from focusing on objectivity too much. Or to a lesser degree even subject-object methods of perception. As the story goes, Jesus came to earth with a consciousness/human brain. And so it begs real questions as to the nature of same.

Accordingly, you can infer existence from Christian Revelation (meditation, prayer, stream of consciousness, and so on) Cosmology, and happenstance.

Objective truth's won't really get you there. Living life is much more. Contemplation of phenomena associated with human consciousness will work better.

Yep good points! It's like saying I know the mind of God ( and his/it's nature).

In a secular sense, we sure feel embarrassed when we make certain assumptions about each other...in that sense there's little difference here.

Sorry for not getting back to you sooner. In the context of our discussion about Fundy v. Atheism, think about what the OP was asking, and why he was asking for strategic guidance.

When it comes to debating Christian Apologetics, that anger and frustrated usually comes from the simple concept known as the 'sin of pride'.

That's another reason to choose inductive reasoning as a better approach.

Or another tool would be pondering natural selection, and the mysteries associated with the nature of things namely our consciousness. Or other Existential phenomena.

I'm guessing you are atheist so I assumed you've looked at all that...

OMG I'm laughing out loud! Good stuff Wayfarer.

Yeah, I guess we can't escape people politics wherever it rears its ugly head... .

....sure, just a postscript to your concerns about the word qualia, I used the word for a couple of reasons:

1. I wanted to learn and understand the philosophical concept associated with consciousness and conscious states of being.

2. I realize atheist Daniel Dennett was one of the driving forces behind that terminology in his book Consciousness Explained ( which of course he was unable to use logic to explain many existential attributes or qualities... using your word...).

So to that particular end, I love quoting excerpts from physicist Paul Davies/The Mind of God book:

"Should we adopt the approach of the pragmatic atheist who is content to take the universe as a given, and get on with cataloging its properties? If we wish to progress beyond, we have to embrace a different concept of ' understanding ' from that of rational explanation."

In this query, I am approaching this subject matter
such that I wish to slow things down and define 'simple concepts' in a sequential way. There is a ton of information to unpack...and want to stay on point with some detours along the way. Accordingly, your url links are relevent and absolutely fabulous, thank you!

I want to thank everyone for their amazing contributions. Thus far I want to focus just a bit on the phenomenon of qualia. Before moving on to other metaphysical concepts and concerns viz. Darwinism:

Just to summarize, we know that qualia has existential impacts to most humans. We know architects and interior designers use colors to help convey emotion. And we know that when we experience the color red or yellow not only is it an ineffable form of qualia, it also invokes emotions. (Red conveys a heightened sense of it excitement and yellow conveys contentment and happiness.)

So we know the common person has these experiencees ( including math and music of course ) that are basically an ineffable form of language that we percieve.

Before moving on to other things. Can we think about what I just said for a moment ? An ineffable form of language that we perceive. Can we agree that that does not even make sense?

Could we agree that it seems to go beyond objective and subjective truths? And if so couldn't it follow that it is a real metaphysical language?

I'm totally inspired Poetic Universe!

I love it!

In a similar vein, what would science be without a sense of wonder(?).

In fact that begs the question does a sense of wonderment confer survival in the jungle?

Or is it just Jungle Love LOL.
(Sorry, I could not refrain.)

I agree wholeheartedly. Unnatural and normal are two different things to parse. Some behavior is not normal. That does not make it bad.

Are you sure about that?

In my travels I've seen atheists get pretty angry. And in my travels I've seen fundies get pretty angry.

However I would share your concern if it relates to religious wars throughout history.

LOL, well let me help a little bit. The ontological argument for the existence of God posits God's existence through a priori reasoning alone.

Atheists posit God does not exist.

Does that help?