Go back on the particular thread and do your homework. Otherwise don't troll this one.

You mean like the questions you evaded in the Kant thread? Sounds like another angry atheist pivoting LOL

Are you going to show the alleged contradiction or not, — jorndoe

You mean like the liar's unresolved paradox?

Or would you rather parse the nature of [your] causational suicide?

Mmmm interesting. Would those tendencies come from your conscious, subconscious or Freudian unconscious mind?

A dipolar God is most certainly logically possible. Have you read the book The Mind of God by physicist Paul Davies?

Okay!?

Are you sure? How could I willfully commit suicide while I was driving and daydreaming?

Does it have to be conscious controlling, or can there be unconscious controlling? — Philosophim

Nice!

Nah, you stopped paying attention. — jorndoe

Don't you just hate it when you intentionally crash and kill yourself!?

That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry. — EricH

Really? I'd call it illogical.

I can both drive and day dream at the same time. — EricH

But how is driving and not driving possible?

What is your particular definition of driving? — Philosophim

Driving is the controlled operation and movement of a motor vehicle, including cars, motorcycles, trucks, and buses. In that case, it was controlled, yet not controlled.

Non sequitor, evasion, deflection. Just think a bit and write down a coherent example that will serve to answer the question. — tim wood

“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

One is forced to conclude you do not know what the LEM is, how it works, or what it is for.

It's 'for' a priori formal logic. And what is your consciousness 'for'?

LOL

I know what you mean. I experienced the same frustration in the Kant thread.

Thus you died because you stopped driving the car, and started daydreaming. — Philosophim

But I 'was' driving the car, otherwise, I wouldn't have crashed and killed myself. So in a proposition, I was both driving and not driving holds true. Hence violation of LEM.

but when does it happen? Example, please? — tim wood

The philosophy/psychology/phenomenology of the dialectics of love, paraconsistent logic, dialetheism, you know, stuff you have no interest in... .

So the question to you is, how is it logically impossible? — tim wood

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. As a proposition, it's logically impossible to explain (its nature) as it would only violate LEM.

Not true. I use the infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming, crashing and killing yourself. Was it true you were driving yet not driving? (Was it your consciousness driving or your subconsciousness driving at the same time daydreaming that caused your death?) In either case, that's logically impossible to do (explain).

It is this essentialism of Kant’s doctrine that I’m arguing against. We may not ‘know’ the reality of existence, but we at least have the capacity to understand it much more than Kant appears to give us credit for (of course, his writing is not only pre-Darwin, but also pre-QM, psychology and neuroscience, so I won’t hold that against him). I don’t agree that the will ‘just is’, that emotion concepts are inherent and therefore universal, or that their indeterminacy is an excuse to not engage the intellect in judgement. It is our capacity for ‘free play’ of imagination and understanding that allows us to then predict, create or hypothesise an aesthetic or emotional experience without presupposing the actual presence of an empirical object. — Possibility

No. This is why human's accept or reject each other's aesthetics within seconds while being observed. It's more Freudian than not. As you said earlier, there is no empirical analysis. It just is. Physically, you either like his attributes or you don't. Some women like tall men with beards and other's don't. Simple.

There is no 'excuse'. We can't help liking what we like, and not liking what we don't like. Go purchase the ugliest million dollar house on the street, notwithstanding me LOL. Otherwise, using the same analogy, why do subdivision's have proffers, is it because they are concerned with appearances?

So why wouldn’t we make use of the intellect in developing an understanding of this faculty of the will - without assuming the necessity of either concepts or empirical objects? Isn’t that what philosophy is? — Possibility

Part of philosophy is both the discovery and uncovery of a particular thing's truth (value) along with its negation. In this case, it is the Will to be, and to perceive those aforementioned things-in-themselves as intrinsic human desires and needs. We don't have to understand their true nature to know that we desire them for what they are, which are things. We appreciate their beauty for its own sake.

Two people who are considered aesthetically unpleasing to look at, don't think about how unpleasing their partner is; they are attracted to each other as an aesthetic need. Mom enters room, baby is happy. Mom leaves room, baby cries. That's just one component of Love (the love as attachment theory), yet a powerful one at that.

.Like it or not, people reject or accept other people (each other's aesthetics) usually within minutes if not seconds. True or false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation. Just because people do this, does not mean it’s definitive of human nature. This is not all we’re capable of. First impressions are rarely accurate,
— Possibility

It has no relevance as to whether they are accurate. They can be arbitrary, inaccurate and subjective. The feelings themselves exist and are real. The ability to reject or accept a subject's aesthetics is a real phenomenon. — 3017amen

What is it that you’re arguing? What do you think occurs when people ‘reject or accept a subject’s aesthetics’ this quickly? They’re not physically rejecting/accepting them. Rather, they are judging the subject by a feeling of predicted pleasure that is far from disinterested - presupposing, as it does, the actual presence of the object - with no claim to universality. And then they are determining and initiating action based on that prediction. This is NOT pure aesthetics. If you believe you are avoiding conceptualisation by focusing on the ‘feeling’ as if it is a phenomenon, then I would argue that you don’t understand Kant’s aesthetics. Kant’s title is Critique of the Faculty of Judgement - the capacity, not the act. — Possibility

They are not judging. They are simply gravitating toward or away from that which is intrinsically pleasing to them. Personally, I prefer dark haired Asian women. I have no idea why. You may prefer dark Italian men with beards, who knows. You can't use Thomism/Lisa Barret to justify your choices. Otherwise, you are with the person for some other reason (which may/may not be a good/bad thing depending on your intentions). But you still have to get past the aesthetics; there is no escape. (So why not enjoy!)

4.The object itself, is essential to the physical aspects of Love (admiration of a new-born, etc.). True/False? — 3017amen
False. You seem to insist on keeping the ‘physical’ subject-to-object aspect of Love isolated. — Possibility

Yes, because without it, in your case of Thomism, no judgement is apperceived.

Love as an apperception of attraction towards the physical aspects of an ‘object’ is only one part of a multi-dimensional phenomenon. You won’t understand Love by defining it so narrowly. — Possibility

Correct. And that is the part you keep denying. Love is certainly more than that, but without that, no-thing occurs. How could it?

When we interact with reality, the brain makes decisions based on very little present empirical information in relation to how we conceptualise reality. — Possibility

There you go again plip-flopping. I agree. You are suggesting the Will precedes the intellect.

that attracts our attention and effort to look and be rewarded with more new, positive information about this appearance of reality — Possibility

Correct. It attracts our attention. Think about that dynamic.

. The Will to have physical romantic love is dependent upon the physical object? True/False? — 3017amen
Sort of true - the — Possibility

It's true. It's logically necessary.

And while a perceived capacity for judgement is necessary to the Will to love romantically, an act of judgement is not. — Possibility

Agree.

. "I can't wait to see you again", is dependent upon the seeing of the object. True/False? — 3017amen
False - although I get how it seems true in your classical understanding of reality. — Possibility

Nonsense. It's true not false. There is no escape from the physical object. If it was false, you wouldn't care to create a mini-me that resembles you.

Women purchase cosmetics because they want to look beautiful. True/false? — 3017amen
Subjective interpretation — Possibility

As it should be! Nonetheless, a universal subjective truth (aesthetics).

In relation to work, it isn’t that I want to look ‘beautiful’, but that I want to appear ‘professional’. A woman who doesn’t wear make-up appears to lack a certain perceived ‘value’ in an office environment — Possibility

Correct. You just contradicted yourself again. Like it or not, appearance in the work environment is important. See, was that so difficult... .

It’s a facade, but a few minutes spent in the morning is a shortcut to making an initial impression. In relation to social events, my aim with cosmetics is to appear more ‘beautiful’, younger or generally more valued than I would otherwise feel in certain company. — Possibility

Once again, I agree. The 'facade' , like it or not, is apparently necessary.

They perceive their potential for beauty only in their physical aspects of appearance as apperceived by external agents, rather than as part of their own potential, their own agency. And you seem more than happy to keep it that way. — Possibility

There's the dichotomy. They should be happy with their own appearance as; good, bad or ugly. Yet, they allow themselves to be manipulated by 'external agents'. That's simply an old paradigm that you're propagating which in turn leads to an unhealthy manipulation of self.

Nonetheless, it proves the importance (psychological impacts) of the physical.

There is nothing wrong with having logically impossible attributes. After all, consciousness itself operates that way.

However, if one were to use some sense of reasonableness, I could stand corrected but I believe the popular Holographic Principle in physics today, posits storage of information (unchanging) at the horizon of black holes all at the speed of light (eternal/timelessness). Even Stephen Hawking admitted his mistake... .

Yes indeed, physical appearances do matter! :chin:

or only in the public eye? — magritte

I'm thinking it was more private...

Kant was a phenomenologist? — Gregory

Yes. It's been quoted by other philosophers that he was considered one of the first from his particular era...

He lost his point when he evaded your questioning. — Gus Lamarch

Imagine that!

LOL

which you know to be founded on no basis. — Gus Lamarch

On what "basis" are you referring?

The only thing I can deduce fr — JerseyFlight

No. That's formalism/ logico deductive reasoning not inductive reasoning.

With respect to the former, and with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

What was it specifically about this study that gave you the knowledge that Jesus is God? — JerseyFlight

Inductive reasoning.

But with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

You claim that Jesus is God. You know this how specifically? — JerseyFlight

Through the study of history as I mentioned.

Should we call it "resentment" or should we feel pity for them? I'm an atheist and I can't help feeling sorry for us. If a God exists, humanity still has a purpose; if not, we need to construct a purpose - and humanity has great difficulty in creating purposes for itself -. — Gus Lamarch

Yes there's a lot of emotional baggage for sure.

As a Christian Existentialist myself, I get the whole nihilist deal. But it's just yet another paradox to resolve. For example, there is something and not nothing. What that something is, and what that nothing is, is a matter of intrigue viz. self-aware conscious beings.

In my opinion the most persuasive or consistent thing an atheist can say is no-thing. However, that in itself presents yet another irony/paradox to resolve...

have no idea what this means? — JerseyFlight

It has something to do with the past. Usually, it relates to past events as well as the memory, discovery, collection, organization, presentation, and interpretation of information about these events. It includes using historical sources such as written documents, oral accounts, ecological markers, and material objects including art and artifacts.

Debating which narrative best explains an event, as well as the significance of different causes and effects, more or less has an element of subjective truth to it. You know, kinda like climate change.

But with respect to the OP, any thoughts on your "negation" belief system and/or associated logic?

, because you are asking me to produce my own negative. Fuck off.
3m — JerseyFlight

See what I mean? Many atheist put a lot of emotional energy into their belief system, drop f-bombs frequently, etc.. Emotions are good, but unfortunately, for many of them it seems to be manifested in a bad way. Usually something traumatic has happened in their past. I certainly get that... .

How do you know that Jesus is God? — JerseyFlight

Historical accounting.

It seems to me in my experience, more often than not, atheists are angry. Even Einstein recognized the phenomenon. He coined the term "fanatical atheist."

I demand that you explain what you mean by the term. I do not jump to conclusion — JerseyFlight

In Christianity: Jesus.

In logic and ontology: logical necessity.

In phenomenology: the religious experience.

With respect to the OP, we can start with your negation of theism which would be a spin-off from item two... ?

The "human" item still weighs heavily. The consequence of this human interference is the fact that theism is still seen as something real, and atheism arises right after theism - whenever "1" comes into existence, all other possibilities — Gus Lamarch

Yep. Another reason formal logic (a priori) by itself (and associated concepts) have limited impacts on the " sentient " human condition.

Atheism already defined it as a negation, per OP.

Your point?

This is complete and utter nonsense, what no one on this thread can see is that this is mere formalism, the term existence does not refer to actual existence, but empty, abstract concepts — JerseyFlight

The ironic thing is you are very likely to use formalism as your criteria for no God.

agree with the implications of your OP, which is that to claim atheism logically requires theism. The term literally describes the condition of being against or in opposition to theism. The further implication then is that theism is a position that requires engagement, one must take a position on it. — Pro Hominem

I agree. It fits nicely into the unity of opposites principle.

Furthermore, anytime an atheist makes a positive statement of no God, they unwittingly put themselves in a precarious and untenable position of proving same.

Denial= a statement that something is not true.

nice post!