Infinity has an attribute - boundlessness. Plotinus' One has none. — TheMadFool

I'm not following that TMF, what do you mean by none?

Early Christian thinkers such as Plotinus proclaimed that God is infinite, and that they were primarily concerned to demonstrate that he is not limited in any way.

in our quest for ultimate answers it is hard not to be drawn in one way or another to the infinite. Whether it's an infinite tower of turtles , and infinity of parallel worlds, an infinite set of mathematical propositions, or an infinite creator, physical existence surely cannot be rooted in anything finite. Otherwise how do things-in-themselves exist?

I thought the absolute one represented infinity?

Then emanation is not a willing act of the perfect (absolute) from which things emanate, (the absolute being purely potential instead) but an act of the emanating things themselves, such that the imperfect things are responsible for their own imperfections, rather than the Creator being responsible for the imperfectio — Metaphysician Undercover

MU!

Could that suggest that the unity of opposites principle is the energy/informational source of the emanate?

Really good video. Thanks. — Gus Lamarch

You're welcome Gus!

How could we test and visualize this through the physical-material world? — Gus Lamarch

Through simple engineering formulas for say the design of a building, aircraft, xcetera, as well as computing the laws of gravity, relativity, xcetera.

Is that what you mean?

both are absolutes, what makes them unique when in comparison with each other? — Gus Lamarch

I'm not sure this will answer the question but it may be one starting point (among others). Consider mathematical truths being both objective truth and abstract metaphysical truth. Whether it's the underlying laws of gravity or an engineering formula that describes a structural beam, both are related to objective abstract truth's.

Are those truth's metaphysical? Well yes they are because they describe physical things in a non-physical way.

Or in cosmology, as it relates to consciousness, how does one perceive time itself? The feeling of time passing surely is not exclusive to physical phenomenon. We can see many objects changing, but can we see our own perceptions of time changing(?). Whether it's time-zone travel, relatively, or time passing quickly when you're busy, these things are not physical. Perceptions are both physical and metaphysical.

It may be a good time for Metaphysician Undercoverer to elucidate his theories on essences... . Is the concept of the Absolute some sort of essence from physical existence, independent, like mathematics?

The arrow of Time is like a rack of balls going in a general direction determined by the aim of the shooter. — Gnomon

Good stuff. The question that may be relevant, is whether the " arrow of time " incorporates the concept of infinity. The reason I think we would want to somehow reconcile that is because in cosmology infinity seems to be associated with the absolute (Cantor's Absolute).

Why, then, do people so easily confuse metaphysical concepts related to the absolute?
1h — Gus Lamarch

I suppose one place to start would be, what is the meaning of absolute? In mathematics (which is closely related to Platonism/Metaphysics), you have Cantor's Absolute. Then of course you have other philosophical ideas that perhaps are a bit more intriguing relative to consciousness:




In any case, I'm not sure we can escape the metaphysical elements...

Thanks for the invite Philosophim. If I could loosely paraphrase your thesis, in a practical way, I do think it is useful to parse or understand which means and methods are appropriate in gaining wisdom given the circumstances. To this end, and before I comment, I have a question.

The attachment uses a concept called "subjective deduction." Is that your theory or way of combining both a priori and a posteriori kinds of reasoning in an all inclusive way for gaining knowledge and wisdom? (And or perhaps combining subjective truths and objective truths.)

Is this like a Donald Trump megathread :smile:

I agree I hate it when that happens (just being lighthearted) !!

Yeah I think there were some previous comments about the so-called pragmatics of clothing relative to protection, safety needs, and so forth. Much like pubic hair, I would think that it also offers an added degree of protection.

But after reading your comment I couldn't help but think about the modern day reality show called naked and afraid. I wonder what the philosophy was behind creating such a scenario? Metaphysically, it's testing one's own will to survive while incorporating the sexual energy between man and woman, through the aesthetical element...

I'm sure it runs through one's mind as to whether the sexual energy is enough to engage in intercourse.. Nonetheless, it's an interesting tension between the will to survive and the will to procreate.

Thank you! Oddly enough, deduction and mathematical truth's are basically one in the same. And so I wonder how tax laws, deductive reasoning mathematical truths and other forms of analytic's speak to meaning of life questions?

After all atheism is based on theism and logico deductive reasoning.

actually do not believe in the distinction between a priori and a posteriori. — Philosophim

That's quite problematic Philosophim. Are you saying that there is no difference between propositions that are tautologies and logical inference( the a priori vs. the a posteriori)?

I believe you're missing a previous point about analytics and the fact that philosophy lives in words. Embrace the notion that a priori logic is not designed to parse or explain the nature of our existence. It may describe it, but it doesn't explain it (the thing-in-itself). Instead, a posteriori empirical analysis is the so-called general rule of the day.

For example, going back to propositions that try to explain conscious existence, consider once again the illogical daydreaming while driving scenario. If one were to further advance a proposition that describes the victim who is subsequently in a coma alive but yet not alive, what would be the truth value to that proposition? Would there be multiple truth values?

A simple study of dialectic reasoning would suggest that living life is much more than a priori deductive reasoning. Generally, life is both/and, not either/or. A priori is either/or. And that is why it's not suitable to parse things that involve consciousness; sense experience. (Which is another reason why the only outcome to the a priori is logical impossibility.) That is just one reason you would be incorrect in suggesting there are no differences between the a priori and the a posteriori. There are many more examples....

Wonderful question. Likewise, what are deductions to the meaning of life?

This second type of knowledge is gained from an appearance. It requires attention (“their eyes were opened”) and can be instant, like an ‘ah-ha’ moment of sudden realisation or awareness.

So it seems clear to me that it’s this second form of knowledge that is gained by Adam and Eve: awareness of fear, gained from an appearance of nakedness. Their knowledge that ‘nakedness is bad’ is limited to singular situation. This is not knowledge of a ‘moral system’ as such. From awareness-type knowledge we begin to construct a moral system of value-attributed concepts, — Possibility

I agree with this interpretation of awareness. I think there are two metaphors in Genesis that relate to that awareness.

The common theme to both the allegorical tree of knowledge and shameful nakedness is self-awareness and self-consciousness respectively.

The tree of knowledge itself and lack thereof, provided a simple word picture for a metaphorical sense of finitude that we have only through our self-awareness. Meaning, as compared to lower life-forms who presumably don't have higher levels of consciousness and self-awareness, we have become aware of the concept of imperfection. And that speaks to the same sense of ignorance in all forms of temporal existence as presented to us in feeling our existential angst relative to the human condition.

To broad-brush it, whether it's a lack of perfection associated with our interpersonal struggles to seek satisfactory happiness, or deficiencies in our vocational needs or professional lives/science and a lack of knowledge and understanding about same, the natural world that we find ourselves in is in fact incomplete (Godel and Heisenberg).

Then there is self-consciousness coming from that same source of self-awareness. In this instance, I am self-conscious of my body. And I feel vulnerable to shame because I cannot choose otherwise. Moreover, I am now selfish through my self-awareness. I now have insatiable needs and I live a constant life of striving (Maslow). A feeling of existential angst has power over me (Ecclesiastes).

You are not what you could be, and you are not what you ought to be. And of course, what you are not you cannot perceive to understand; it cannot communicate itself to you. The chasm between what you are and what you ought to be is as unreconcilable as unresolved paradox from the so-called self-referential statements of Being (Liars paradox).

Covering yourself with clothing is a right response to this—to conceal it, and some argue, to confess it. In any case, we're aware of it, self aware. Henceforth, you shall wear clothing, not to conceal that you are not what you should be, but to confess that you are not what you should be. We have now become humble.

Fast-forwarding a bit, we do have opportunities to shed this facade (nudist colonies), in order to provide for a false sense of innocence. Hence my own personal experience (the foregoing thought-- experiment) of feeling joyful in that nakedness, and a feeling of no shame and no vulnerability. A liberation of sorts (both a discovery and uncovery of a truth/ Being), but a temporalness nonetheless...

Interesting.

1. Why is the percentage drop not commensurate with atheism? In onother words people are not moving toward atheism as an alternative.
2. Why is atheism so low, comparatively?
3. Other Faith's are on the rise it seems... .

Of course I'm not sure whether a battle of the surveys would be convincing either way, you know, kind of like climate change scientists.

And that takes us back to the OP. I'm having fun with the discussion, but his premise seems to be based on either politics or an emotional rant of some sort. In other words, 'I'm a disgruntled Atheist and I want the world to know.' Whaa my puddy hurt's LOL

I'd say man up or get out!

It appears the survey only relates to young adults, which kind of makes sense.

If one were to try to make a case for atheism, you would want to look at it in a more comprehensive way, including whether atheism itself is on the rise... . To that end, I don't see that happening.

Like I said, if I were an atheist, it would make sense to move to some third world communist country...

But I tend to agree that Christianity here, where fundamentalism thrives — Ciceronianus the White

Yep. There are those who say that religion gives Deity or God a bad name. Likewise, in Christianity, I'm not convinced Jesus mandated religion.

He did seem to 'mandate' love and pacifism though.

Christian ethicist. — tim wood

Christian Existentialist.

Do your homework Timmy!

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame on continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

Fuck you, 3017.
— tim wood

It's okay Tim. You don't seem to be that resolute in your belief system anyway, and I certainly can understand that.

My questions are basic existential questions, which seem to pose some challenges for you. I would say continue searching and asking questions. I know it's a struggle sometimes and that it brings about frustration. Maybe just try not to be so afraid of yourself.

Be well.

Nah, it's not going anywhere soon. The good news is that folks are becoming a bit more sophisticated with their views about religious dogma and such. Accordingly, they are finding alternative religion's as a means to the same end. Religion is just man's way of interacting with one Deity. And it's been around forever.

I think the only bugger might be the paradox of nihilism. But it's all good, it's kind of like the unity of opposites principle, you know, like Theism and A-theism. You can't have one without the other. Kind of like volitional existence.

If you think logic explains anything, please indicate how - an example works. — tim wood

I'm not following that. I thought logic was used to support your belief system (Atheism)?

Othwerwise, per the OP, I believe you still need to provide justification for numerous things, like:

1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?

2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?

Based on your answer of "no", does it follow that It is now starting to sound as if all of life is a big mystery? I mean, if you can't use logic to explain conscious existence, nor your belief in A-theism (which is based on Theism) how does the Athiest square the circle?

Or maybe you don't really represent the Athiest mindset all that well, not sure there, only you would know that. Must be some kind of Subjective truth.

Timmy!

Just want to make sure I am understanding you and interpreting your statements thus far::

1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?

2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?

You said:
"...logic does not explain anything."

Tim, how could this be?

But none of that is as persuasive as deductive reasoning, no?

Perhaps this you might understand: logic does not explain anything. Your answer is no. — tim wood

OIC. Frankly I'm confused. How do you support your belief system then? What kind of logic do you use?

that's the real reason you want me to leave. — god must be atheist

Oh please don't take it personal. You are certainly more than welcome to argue your Atheism. It's just that here in America it's more of a losing battle for you.

It's just that it seems more practical that say in a communist country, where nihilism and those kinds of ideologies are more prevalent, it
would make you feel more comfortable.

It's all good no worries.

Why did the first Europeans from Christian countries come to America? Would they not be more comfortable in their own countries, instead of trying to make a life in a continent full of heathens, who worshipped idols?

If you can answer that, you can answer why an atheist would come to America. — god must be atheist

I think part of it had to do with religious dogma. That's one reason why in political philosophy here in America, we have separation of church and state ideals.

Since we still have in God we Trust on our currency; value Christian philosophy, freedom to express other Religious belief systems, so on and so forth, I would think the atheist should basically, pardon the phrase, feel outnumbered and pack up and get out, and go where there's more of a comfort level.

Christianity is not going to change, here in America, like it or not...

Oh, sorry, I saw that you dodged this question. This is an important question that relates to the OP:

Can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?

Are you trying to say that over 75% of philosophical domains (whatever that means) is wrong? Or it is right. You did not make a point, you just quoted a statistic (which I highly doubt has to do with any counting or measuring of the area of domains of — god must be atheist

Really? God is 'posited' in ethics, political philosophy, metaphysics, philosophy of religion, epistemology, contemporary philosophy and even logic (ontological and cosmological arguments).

The point is, like it or not, the concept of God has a significant impact on philosophy itself.

In all seriousness, I'm really confused about why an atheist would reside in or feel comfortable in and place like America. Wouldn't they be better served in a country that didn't care about or value the existence of God/Christianity and/or a country that didn't value the concept of God?

I mean I'm trying to understand the significance of the OP. Is it more or less an emotional purging of sorts or a rant, or even a political statement seeking change, you think?

I could stand corrected, but I'm wondering that say, certain communist countries would be more suitable for the Atheist ideology...

What do you imagine an "exclusively physically objective phenomena is? I ask becasue I have no idea what such a thing could be - and on it's own terms, not possible. — tim wood

I realize metaphysics is kind of new to you. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and purpose of the universe; how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order, the relationship between mind and matter and the existence of the will. And of course any and all meaning of life questions. Are those things not possible using your sense of reason/deduction?

If you have sufficient evidence then you are a scientist, and you don't need faith. — tim wood

Not sure what that means...does that mean theoretical physics and cognitive science are unimportant?

What is this? Example, please. — tim wood

Calculating the laws of gravity when they're not required for survival.

What is an example of a naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon? — tim wood

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.

Over 75% a philosophical domains posit God as a customary or standard axiom or criteria. You know, it's all part of philosophy and philosophical discourse, a human condition thing.

Is this a rant?

about it is metaphysical?" — tim wood

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.

Who says atheism is a belief system? — tim wood

Everyone. Because it's obviously based upon your belief system that posits negation of its truth value. That's why it's called atheism. It's based on theism. Unfortunately, there are many fanatical atheists (such as yourself who frequently drop f-bombs when frustrated with EOG topics) who tend to deny the obvious. It's probably some sort of cognitive dissonance or pathology...not exactly sure.

What makes you think it might? I do not think it does, and not because of any failure, but because it's a nonsense question. Or to you, how does a spatula tighten a 9/16ths bolt? Or, when does the wind Thursday? — tim wood

Not sure I'm following that. I asked how does deductive reasoning explain consciousness?

And why would you think reason is a sense? — tim wood

Reason comes from self-awareness, you know, another metaphysical phenomenon from our stream of consciousness; kind of like the ability to perform cosmologic mathematical calculations relative to causation.

What about any item on your list makes it a "naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon." — tim wood

Well, in a word, consciousness. For example, most atheist's rely on logic to support their belief system. And as such, can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?

Alternatively, don't take this the wrong way, but I consider you one of those fanatical atheists (that Einstein talked about), and so I'm compelled to ask, how does deduction explains things like : the Will, Love, wonderment, synthetic a priori knowledge, et al.

Please share your thoughts if you can, using your sense of reasoning.

....have you a renewed interest? Don't take this the wrong way, but it's been my experience that Atheists on this site don't usually seem to be that intuitive, but if you care to parse any of the following concepts, I may provide for some insight:

List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism

Gosh, you know Tim, just regular stuff that relates to conscious existence. Stuff you're really not interested in... .

Be well!

Regarding the multitude of arguments for theism and atheism, is it reasonable for both sides to hold the positions they hold? — DPKING

Reasonableness generally means treating like cases likely, and different cases differently. As such, the atheist seems to be more ignorant to common sense. Meaning, there seems to be a denial or animosity toward both naturally occurring metaphysical phenomena and the existential human experience.

I would say to the atheist, if you feel strongly about your belief system, perhaps In God we Trust is not the place for you. Feel free to leave!

1. If the apostles were willing to be martyred for the sake of Christ, then they must have had intense belief. — Josh Vasquez

It was probably some sort of love that they experienced. You know that, walk in front of a train kind of love, you have for your family!

Is that illogical, I wonder... (?).

:up:

You're absolutely right to say it gives atheists (like myself) a terrible name. — Xtrix

Yep. Jersey has insatiable appetite for grinding axes. You're at least the second person who pointed that out ..

As such, according to the OP survey, it seems as though it fits within the category of "wanting attention."

would rather not have to deal with it at all. — JerseyFlight

Then you should get out of philosophy all together because over 75% of philosophical domains posit God.

As they say, if you can't stand the heat get out of the kitchen LOL.