The very best that can be claimed, is that self-awareness is a subjectively valid representation. — Mww

Mww!

LOL yep I remember that in my studies of Existentialism. Sort of a huge topic that deserves a separate thread. The particular distinction of predication (whether existence is a true predicate) reminds me of a similar one where some argue that a subjective truth is not a truth that I have, but a truth that I am. :smile:

Remember, man tends to forget existence. It happens, however, that he must first exist in order to have self-awareness and use reason.

The point you keep missing was Wayfarer's platonic ideals from the simple standpoint of physical v. metaphysical. Like mathematical abstracts, they can describe a circle or a structural beam, through using calculations (ideas), but never come into existence. In themselves they hold no mass or weight yet they are used in physics to effectively describe physical things as found in nature, or in engineering to describe and design a structure, etc. etc..

If it has mass, then it's in reality — tim wood

I agree, particularly when you mistakenly conflated mass with reality :joke:

Remember, here in America, pragmatic principles that say relate to Ethics (how to live happily), as found in the OT/Wisdom Books, is Christian Philosophy.

That is exactly what I started off saying! Useless! — tim wood

Useless for whom?

I think these do not have mass, consequently not, on my understanding, in reality, though perfectly real. If you think they exist outside of minds, then an adequate account of that would be nice. — tim wood

Great! So you stand corrected. Those things have no mass, yet are real.

As far as something existing outside the mind (phenomenology), and/or mathematics having an independent existence (as examples), I tend to side-in with Wayfarer. But that's just my Kantian intuition :gasp: I think when you think of infinity/speed of light; something existing outside of time (eternity) that creates temporal time, (mathematics being a so-called timeless eternal truth) so on and s forth you can't help but wonder for a deeper explanation. Or at least wondering about the causes of something existing independent of temporal time itself (like relativity/the speed of light).

But only theories exist there. It could be that some other possible world has yet another language altogether that in-turn explains itself (existence). Or, maybe there are other worlds like ours with limited explanation, just a different set of rationality. I think we're back to multiverse theories...the notion of possible worlds is intriguing. But we're kind of off topic there... .

Reason and Doubt apparently don't have mass.

Doesn't take long studies in philosophy, does it?

• x is subjective = x's existence is mind-dependent (e.g. fictional (fictions exist too))
• x is objective = x's existence is mind-independent (e.g. real) — jorndoe

Nice!

That raises more questions than it answers. Here are a few to ponder:

1. Are feelings subjective or objective?
2. Are the laws of nature independent or 'dependent' on something?
3. Is Subjective Idealism a metaphysical theory about some thing objective?
4. Is mathematics objective or subjective?
5. Is love subjective or objective?
6. Is the ontological argument objective or subjective?
7. Is the ineffable religious experience subjective or objective?

Bonus question: should we be thinking binary or dialectic?

Questions, questions, questions!

If it has mass, then it's in reality. — tim wood
Does the will to survive have mass :snicker:[/quote]


Does 'Doubt' have mass? Or how about 'Reason'?

LOL, there are few real answers in philosophy, but at least we know self-awareness exists! Or at least it's true that philosophy itself requires having self-awareness in order to practice it!!

Which would be supernatural and more akin to poetry if we were to accept what Eric says. :s — DoppyTheElv

From an epistemic point of view, you would have to ask yourself why or how should one even posit such a possible world, and why are possible worlds so axiomatic in determining the truth values about whether something is logically possible (or not) and/or logically necessary? Those kinds of questions go back to Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge, and how it's possible :gasp:

And that leads to other metaphysical questions and concerns, like what are the laws of physics themselves...

Super natural: a manifestation or event attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. (Or maybe start with the mystery of consciousness, that should be easy :snicker: .)

This thing we humans call “the universe” may not be all that exits…in fact, it may not even be MOST of what exists. — Frank Apisa

Yep, Multiverse... .

If it has mass, then it's in reality. — tim wood

Does the will to survive have mass :snicker:

I've attempted to be clear. If it has mass, then it's in reality. It's also real. If it's an idea, no mass, real, not in reality. — tim wood

Tim's not correct Wayfarer. Gravity consists of particles called Gravitons (the hypothetical graviton, is a massless particle traveling at the speed of light, just like photons in the electromagnetic theory/we don't actually know for sure), which have no mass. Neither do photons. But gravity seems to be more complicated. Gravity is a force, which can exist in the form of Gravitational Waves, which are ripples in the spacetime. Hence gravitational waves are massless too. All in all, we can say that gravity/photons don't have a mass.

In the real world of everydayness, there are many things from consciousness (thoughts and feelings themselves) that don't have 'mass'. And that's a no-brainer!

Firstly you can't reasonably claim that what someone is about to say is false because you don't know what they are going to say, that is there is as yet no coherent object your statement refers to. But putting that objection aside for the sake of argument, the problem is that there is no coherent object to assess their truth in either of these statements. — Janus

Actually, you can. it's done quite often in everydayness when people banter about. Even though the direct object is not explicit, it's implied as being an indirect object.

Perhaps more importantly, self-reference is about the knowing of the subject/person itself, and because we don't know the nature of our own existence, such paradox exists. Think of it as if there was another language that could possibly have the capacity to unpack such a paradoxical statement. As it stands, our language, being part of a temporal condition, precludes such resolution.

Also, keep in mind that because a particular string of vocabulary is incorrect syntax for one language, it does not mean that it's incorrect for another. "Car on part" may be incorrect syntax for English, but is correct syntax for French (not to mention unusual syntax for lyrics, poetry, computer language, etc.).

Consider this: Socrates: What Plato said is false
Plato: Socrates has spoken truly

In this case there could be a coherent object in the statement of Plato's being referred to (which we have not seen) and we are not able to make any assessment as to whether both are correct in their agreement that the statement was false until we know what that statement is. — Janus

But that's not a self-referential declaration. In that transaction, it leaves out the concept of self-reference by not using the word 'about'. Which is to say that the statement would be about someone else, the indirect object. And so all you have there is just ordinary semantics.

But back to the OP, all this basically means is that there will always exist certain true statements that cannot be proved to be true (just like in mathematics/Gödel).

I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).

I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc. — EricH

Ironically enough, I find atheist's more angry. I'm happy, thanks!

I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists". — EricH

Is the concept of God, Subjectivity or Objectivity, or something else? If logic, as you say, cannot explain God, what transcends logic?

In summary, you haven't explained your conscious existence and how you came to be... , now, you are saying that logic cannot answer the deepest questions of existence.

By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.

The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk: — EricH

Your own consciousness (conscious and subconscious working together) breaks the law of non-contradiction. Jesus had a consciousness. I see no difference there.

Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?

Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.

If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it! — EricH

I'm not sure I would be world famous, but those who've had a religious experience might. Accordingly, you may want to study William James, AH Maslow and other's from cognitive science (ineffable experiences) etc... .

Self-awareness.

It's not a problem with "objective reasoning"; because this so-called proposition has no coherent object. — Janus

I don't think so Janus, hence:

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

sense of wonderment is a feeling; wondering is thinking; consciousness is an idea. — Mww

What do all of them have in common?

sentence is just a string of words; how could a string of words be true or false? I think it is more in keeping with what is commonly meant to say that sentences express propositions, and that it is propositions which may be true or false. I say this because a propositions can be expressed in many different ways (sentences). — Janus

Because it describes something, as in declarative sentences. And of course in this instance, if it makes a declaration about itself, it has the potential to become an unresolved paradox.. The liars paradox in neither true nor false. It's based on a priori and logical deductive reasoning. Kind of like mathematics (Godel/Heisenberg etc.).

One of the downsides of so-called pure objective reasoning...

I have no problems with your definition of the term objectivity (allthough for some weird reason you insist on capitalizing it) — EricH

I take it you are new to philosophy, and that's perfectly fine. You may want to Google it on your own time; Subjectivity v. Objectivity.

Is the concept of God an objective truth or a subjective truth, or some other kind truth? Or, is it even considered a truth?

Mww!

Thanks for your reply. I want to re-state the statement that you have or had concerns about.

"It seems that our consciousness allows for certain intrinsic or innate wonder's about the causes of things, that exist all around us, including ourselves."

That's a generic statement about having a sense of wonderment (wondering) about what things causes other things to happen. What is it about that, that cause such consternation?

What transcends Objectivity?
— 3017amen
The ephemeral beauty of transcendence,
Will last beyond eternity.
It will rise from the grave of uncertainty
To grow to the heights of the one and only Objectivity.
Nay! In it's all knowing indefinable one and only Truth,
It will last forever! — EricH

I'm not following that, are you saying that Objectivity is poetry?

Mmmm, let's see... want to try and break that down first, maybe? Let's start with the quick philosophical meaning, then we can explore some other ideas. Unless of course you're married to poetry/athesm/theism, etc.. :

In philosophy, objectivity is the concept of truth independent from individual subjectivity. A proposition is considered to have objective truth when its truth conditions are met without bias caused by a sentient subject. Scientific objectivity refers to the ability to judge without partiality or external influence.

And so, what do you think transcends Objectivity?

I already answered your question, thank you. (The concept of God is both natural and super-natural.) What don't you understand about that?

And I'll keep asking you: What transcends Objectivity (?). Is it poetry or philosophy (if it's not philosophy, why isn't it?)

I have not read through the entire thread, so apologies if this point has already been made.

Maybe I'm being naive or missing the point, but I use the word "truth" pretty much as it is used in a court of law. When you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that your words and sentences will - to the best of your ability - describe facts. I'm not super knowledgeable about all the different schools of philosophy, but I'm pretty certain that this is some variation of the Correspondence Theory.

So when you say "This sentence is false"? In order for for this sentence to have any meaning, the pronoun "this" must refer to some statement that makes a factual assertion about reality/existence/the universe/etc. In this case, no such assertion is being made, hence the sentence is meaningless and cannot take a truth value. — EricH

I would say it's advisable to read the thread, hence:

Mathematician and logician Kurt Godel (and Alan Turing/Turing machine and Bertrand Russell--you can Google that if you will) explored the concepts of infinity versus finitude as it relates to mathematics (deduction).

Without getting into the technical details (which we can if you want) Godel parced the relationship between the description of mathematics and mathematics itself. Basically, he was known to have labeled mathematical propositions combining a sequence of propositions into corresponding natural numbers that form associated labels. Logical operations about mathematics were made to correspond to mathematical operations themselves. The idea linked the self-referential concept of Godel's proof by identifying the subject with the object.

Accordingly, self-referential paradoxes is the appropriate analogy. As mentioned in the OP, the liar's paradox is an unresolved paradox that of course is self referential. It's undecidable, and it's incomplete. And it's based upon a priori logico deductive reasoning.

BTW, as you alluded, this is philosophy; not the law of contracts.

What transcends pure objectivity? — 3017amen

Isn't it philosophy (if not, why not)?

Thanks for your interpretations on Kant. I agree with them, and hold similar views and interpretations.

Also, it's worth parsing (and this is by no means an exhaustive attempt) the concept of synthetic a priori knowledge (that so-called awareness which separates us from lower life forms). It seems that our consciousness allows for certain intrinsic or innate wonders about the causes of things, that exist all around us, including ourselves.

For instance, when we utter the judgement all events must have a cause, we can simply ask ourselves, why do we even have the capacity to ask such a question (why do we ask why), and what is the purpose to the asking of why (?). Some would argue that our intuition plays some sort of role in its existence (synthetic a priori judgements). In that case, it would be something that is innate and/or something that naturally exists from within our consciousness, that seemingly is universal and intrinsic to all homo-sapiens. Something a priori, that just is. I think you alluded to that.

I can't even begin to understand the nature of such human capacity or capabilities or features associated with human consciousness; I can only wonder about such things and use it to my advantage to enhance my existence (the human condition). Ironically, this same sense of wonderment does in fact have pragmatic attributes/benefits involving quality of life issues/concerns (wondering about doing, and making things better for ourselves and others), which also leads to things like the Will to survive (another topic altogether of course).

But back to the OP, I think doubt and belief are different from emergent behavior and instinct. Birds swarming, animals migrating, animals sensing nature as in tsunamis and season changes, so on and so forth seem to all come from instinctual emergent properties, rather than any sort of higher level self-awareness and volitional existence.

https://medium.com/the-explanation/animal-instinct-and-human-intelligence-the-insurmountable-gulf-bfc95ac8e759

...no exceptions taken, good stuff guys. I kinda like how this thread evolved into reason and belief… .

:up:

I don't see what you think is true here. — Janus

The sentence itself, is in fact true, because it's a sentence.

Here you have two different sentences which are referring to each other; which seems to be just a more elaborate form of self-referentiality, so I don't see why the same would not apply as with the "Liar". — Janus

Yes, correct.

an entirely different matter. No empirical statement that happens to be true can be proven (in the deductive sense) to be true. How would you prove that water boils at 100 degrees C, for example? — Janus

Sounds kind of like Kantian things-in-themselves... .

There are many different threads in your post - way too many to respond to. E.g. you spend a lot of time talking about hostility & anger of non-theists towards theists. I'm gonna skip this - but if you are really interested, suggest you open up a new topic - make sure you are clear in your OP that you are not interested in debating specific theistic issues but instead want to discuss the hostility and anger you are seeing. Of course it is likely that this conversation will end up embroiled in theological disputes anyway. :smile: But I think you will get some useful information out of it. — EricH

I already did one. Check my profile and you'll see... . The resulting consensus related to grudges against religion from childhood, etc.. Thus your comment about sentience... ,it's real stuff.

And so, you really haven't addressed your own comments about sentience and my comment about subjectivity.

So my question to you is very simple - when you use the word "God" - are you referring to a being/entity who is completely in the natural world - or does "God" have some supernatural aspect?

My hunch is that your "God" has some supernatural aspect to it - after all your "God" "existed" before the natural world existed - so your "God" is at least in some respect "outside nature"

So when you respond, please start off by being direct. Is your "God" "natural" or "supernatural". Of course you can add any additional explanations that you wish to make things clear. :smile: — EricH

Both. Plain and simple. The concept of God has to be, otherwise, it is pointless to posit same. In the case of Christianity Jesus/God concept, conscious existence, self-awareness, etc. supports something that seemingly transcends pure reason, objectivity, (objective truth's, mathematical truth's/cosmology...).

What transcends pure objectivity?

This sentence is true" is nonsense; it is like saying "This car is true". — Janus

Janus I'm not splitting hairs but I'm not sure that's exactly correct. Saying " this sentence is true" is actually true , I think, because it's a statement about itself.

Similarly, " this statement is a lie" is referencing the statement itself too. And so if the statement is true, then it is false; and if it's false, then it's true.

Other examples are:

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

And:

"Janus cannot prove this statement to be true."

It basically means that there will always exist certain true statements that cannot be proved to be true.

Hmmm, I'm not seeing the immediate connection between the Liar Paradox and the incompleteness theorems, but maybe there is an interesting one. Could you elaborate? — Kornelius

Sure great question! And welcome to the forum by the way.

Mathematician and logician Kurt Godel (and Alan Turing/Turing machine and Bertrand Russell--you can Google that if you will) explored the concepts of infinity versus finitude as it relates to mathematics (deduction).

Without getting into the technical details (which we can if you want) Godel parced the relationship between the description of mathematics and mathematics itself. Basically, he was known to have labeled mathematical propositions combining a sequence of propositions into corresponding natural numbers that form associated labels. Logical operations about mathematics were made to correspond to mathematical operations themselves. The idea linked the self-referential concept of Godel's proof by identifying the subject with the object.

Accordingly, self-referential paradoxes is the appropriate analogy. As mentioned in the OP, the liar's paradox is an unresolved paradox that of course is self referential. It's undecidable, and it's incomplete. And it's based upon a priori logico deductive reasoning.

Sentences are precisely the things that can be true or false. The truth predicate applies to sentences (or propositions). It does not apply to any other object. — Kornelius

I'll return the favor and ask you for clarification of your foregoing quote. How are you suggesting there are no undecidable propositions? (How could this be?)

TMF!

Just wondering, were you able to draw any distinctions between (or consider) human intelligence and animal instinct?

One reason I ask is when reading your OP regarding doubt, I thought of another analogy relating to mammals. For example, a shark in the water often mistakenly attacks someone on a surfboard flapping their arms paddling presumably perceiving it as prey (like a seal, etc.). Apparently that is known to happen when the water is murky v. clear (though not all the time). So the shark visually confuses it with prey, seemingly more on an instinctual level (emergence), v. an intellectual level of doubt, wonder, creativity, self-awareness, the will, and other so-called metaphysical features of consciousness and intelligence.

(Since animals have the capacity to sense tsunamis, weather patterns, seasons, and other natural phenomena presumably from emergence), perhaps some other interesting questions there that could follow would be:

Is mankind just a more advanced animal? Is intelligence just a more advanced animal instinct and intelligence? Are mankind’s emotions and feeling just more advanced animal emotions and feelings? Do animals have synthetic a priori knowledge? Do they have a will to survive or an instinct to survive. So on and so forth...

So the first question is this: why should we think that the concept of Truth is inconsistent? — Kornelius

In a word, truth is dynamic, not static. The need to embrace truth, from our self-awareness (conscious existence), as you so well suggested, represents another paradox. The first one you mentioned from the liar's paradox (propositions of self-reference) not only represents paradox itself, but perhaps more importantly incompleteness; hence, dynamic (see Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty/incompleteness theorem).

Thinking itself (about truth) requires the passage of time (dynamic). And is almost yet another 'dualistic', metaphysical kind of question... .

To that end, one could argue that truth is both dynamic and static, just like one could make the case for truth being both subjective and objective.

Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life” — EricH

Another great point. Here's the decisive moment. Isn't life itself outside the axioms of logic? (Is it in many ways, illogical? Hint: Dialectic reasoning) Maybe another (philosophical) way to ask that; what transcends objectivity?

Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***

This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy. — EricH

Eric!

Well, a very important distinction. Thank you for bringing that to light. 'Religion' (man's way of worshiping a God), is just another 'temporal' means to an end as it were. Meaning, the concept of a God indeed broaches not only the many domain's of philosophy, but cognitive science/psychology as well (in principle, as it should). For that reason alone (the so-called existential reason) it's appropriate and germane. It is, in itself, a broad and far reaching subject matter.

Accordingly, we have seen thus far (not only here but throughout history), emotions (as Einstein even alluded to and he's not even a psychologist) running high and people (atheists in this case) overreacting (apparently from his work in cosmology). The point there is, not only is there the existential angst component that is associated with our existence here, but you have to ask yourself, if I'm an atheist, why am I or should I even be angry about debating EOG?

If an atheist doesn't believe that God/Jesus existed, then why does it invoke so much anger and hatred? Honestly, I don't get that. (I hate to call someone out because that's not my intent to embarrassed someone, but just so you know I'm not talking theory-only, Tim Wood dropped the F-bomb several times... .) So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the cognitive science piece (sentience) that you allude to... .

Anyway, I certainly get all of the angst that comes along with the territory over the history of Religion itself; wars, killing, so on and so forth, but if we are to use objectivity exclusively in our approach to EOG, why should emotions play such an integral and important/obvious part... (note the paradox there from the foregoing concept of objectivity)?

What's more, since I'm equal opportunity, it's not just germane to atheism; it's agnosticism, theism, and other forms of religion ,etc.. etc.. In other words, it's human condition stuff. Existential stuff.

Thus, it seems, once again, we have a sort of inescapable paradox. And so, it also seems, that one relies on objectivity for their sense of logic, yet cannot escape their subjectivity. How does atheism square that circle?

That is a very important distinction you raise, which got me to thinking about that paradox, so thank you for that insight. Please poke holes in my argument and/or feel free to add thoughts of your own there. (I'll look at your other arguments shortly, but wanted to underscore that/your point.)

dumb & dumber. — 180 Proof

Forgive me for the redundancy, since you guys seem to be on a witch hunt, I can't help but think the following quote actually describes you guys LOL


The fanatical atheists are like ...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
Albert Einstein

No pun intended, I wonder if Einstein was correct?

I would simply suggest putting your money where your mouth is and join the conversation. But perhaps you'll strawman the response... I hope I'm wrong.... We shall see.

The conversation is pathetic. As evidenced by the very post to which this is a reply. Neither of you has the sense ot back off in the face of the other's idiocy, resulting in mere acrimony. — Banno

To be honest, I think it's because you're an atheist;. don't take it the wrong way, but an atheist that is much like what Einstein talked about. In other words, you're just trolling the thread (and offering no real import).

You're right Frank. Remember you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!

Just joking my friend!!

thread is embarrassing, not just for 3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it. — Banno

Who's it embarrassing for, you?

Are you an atheist?