But mathematics is an objective truth. I don't understand how they can be arbitrary? Please explain!! — 3017amen

It's arbitrary what axioms you accept and while the conclusions you draw given a previously system within which to do so is not if you choose to precisely abide by said systemic rules.

Does that mean consciousness may be explained in one person's mind, but not in another person's mind? — 3017amen

I was talking generally about the categories of our experiences, the nature of them, and the abstractions covering them in which perhaps a contradiction does reveal itself to one but not to all nor pervades an entire category. Though, it isn't too far a stretch to say that other conscious experiences could be so distinct to the point that even the logical structure of them was different (different axioms are accepted).

Well, not sure what your argument is then, or do you have one? — 3017amen

I've been more clarifying my positions rather than using it or diverging from it.

Yourself perceiving it's objectiveness. — 3017amen

What?

Ok, great! — 3017amen

Okay.

Mathematics. You know, mathematical abstracts, Platonism, etc.. — 3017amen

Yes, descriptions of our reality and further arbitrary abstractions to model its behvaior.

Great. we agree! Logic can't help us!!! Does that mean super-natural is an alternative? — 3017amen

I can't remember again what it's that you've defined super-natural as but you seem to have glossed over the distinction between our experiences, abstractions of those, and what gives rise to our experiences. In all cases IF a true paradox exists in one that may not mean that it exists in another. Further, para-consistent logic or any non-classical logic is not a complete abandonment of everything that is classical logic but an adjustment to it. . . true and false still exist within those.

Sounds like existential angst of some sort. No exceptions taken. — 3017amen

Okay.

In other words, you don't know the nature of your own existence. I gotcha. — 3017amen

Ahem, are we on repeat now?

Is that another form of a subjective truth or objective truth? — 3017amen

I state it and believe what i've stated so it's objective. . . what would make it subjective?

Okay? — 3017amen

Reality exists and if I didn't explicitly result in its existence then clearly something which isn't what I am had to.

But if what is natural is an experience that is unknown, how do you know that experiences are real? — 3017amen

Experiences are what they are. . . recall the mirage of palm trees out in the distance with a pool of water. Whether or not our abstract models makes such an experience consistent with previous ones and the meanings of the words involved the experience of said mirage is as real as you'll get. What gives rise to experiences is truly unknown but the experiences themselves and the relationships they have to each other are not. It's just as real to experience an imaginary friend as your actual friend but while they are just as "real" it would be a rather large lapse in judgement to designate them as the same experiences simpliciter.

Oh, well let's also then add to Gödel, Heisenberg (uncertainty principle). LOL — 3017amen

Yes, Heisenberg uncertainty principle from a certain abstract model of quantum phenomenon among many others. . . instrumentalism anyone.

You could read too! I said noun, not adjective. Agreed there is much that seems paradoxical in nature. But the question was to provide an example from nature of a paradox. You misread - happens to all of us. 3017, however, long ago wore out any presumption of innocence. — tim wood

Ah, yes.

Time. Do your homework Timmy!! LOL — 3017amen

I'd also preface that you do not seem to note the difference between that which is merely undecidable and that which is paradoxical with both being rather distinguished ideas.

That explanation doesn't seem to square with the laws of nature themselves, nor does it square with the existence of a conscious being known from history as Jesus. — 3017amen

What laws of nature? You mean the regularities or patterns in our experience because if that is what we value to navigate our experiences then contradictions explicitly would put a wrench in doing anything if we didn't pay attention to what predictably occurs or is.

For instance, we've already agreed that the laws of nature are paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete. And we also know that the nature of consciousness is outside the parameters of formal logic, thus also paradoxical, contradictory and incomplete (unconsciousness, consciousness and subconsciousness all working together). — 3017amen

The model would be contradictory or incomplete but to say consciousness is paradoxical or doesn't abide by formal laws of logic would be childishly over the top nearly violating the explicit wall there is between our experiences and the nature of what gives rise to them.

And so either Platonism, mathematics, or something that transcends the natural laws of existence must be considered. — 3017amen

There is nothing above the regularities in of and the experiences we have. . . period. To jump into platonism is too commit oneself to asking questions about the nature of our experiences which cannot be answered without skepticism and Descartes tearing it down to arbitrariness.

Otherwise, we are back to simple wonderment, and the physicists questions that help him discover things from asking: 'all events must have a cause' as a means to his end. Accordingly, you said that a similar sense of wonderment is in itself, from consciousness, and thus is mysteriously unknown. — 3017amen

Depends on your definition of what you would mean by consciousness or what precise concepts could describe it to the best of our semantic abilities. . . putting that aside.

What have I been saying this whole time? That our experiences are the only data we can use and speculate about the experience of the unexperienced (skeptical scenarios) will result in arbitrariness. Only that which informs us of what may happen next or what happens in the case of this collection of experiences or questions about or within our abstract models themselves are all that seems to matter here.

So why and how did we get here? Everything seems mysterious or unknown(?). And from what you are telling me, all we have are metaphysical abstracts and ideas (mathematics) which in turn are incomplete and paradoxical. — 3017amen

It seems that way but we're (especially you) asking meta-questions about our system and we can only remain within this system to ask questions with the system. Were stuck in F,

First Incompleteness Theorem: "Any consistent formal system F within which a certain amount of elementary arithmetic can be carried out is incomplete; i.e., there are statements of the language of F which can neither be proved nor disproved in F." (Raatikainen 2015)

It's pretty much as conventional as our consciousness would allow. The model would consist of the historical account of Jesus, the mystery of Love and consciousness, and inductive reasoning (the religious experience) to say the least. Most of which includes metaphysics and phenomenology. And of course all of which exists/existed. — 3017amen

Why you would add anything as such is up to you and your arbitrary/restricted preferences.

Okay, you don't know some features or attributes from your own conscious existence. Is self-awareness something that just is? What about Love and other sentient/metaphysical attributes from consciousness, how do they confer any biological advantages? — 3017amen

It's right now (however we've defined it to be) and if I didn't give rise to them ("features or attributes from your own conscious existence") then what isn't me did.

There seems to be a lot that you don't know that is seemingly natural. — 3017amen

All that gives rise to our experiences or is those experiences I consider natural.

So abstract models are natural then, from experience? — 3017amen

They have to be as at most I have come to be aware of these models or perhaps give rise to them, manipulate them, but in the end given I have not (within knowledge) given rise to myself this leads to that which gives rise to our experiences or what experiences are.

No exceptions taken, since in our context; Jesus, Platonism, etc. etc. can be abstract models about some other form of consciousness from which the ideas themselves also come from consciousness. Does that sound right? — 3017amen

The deceitful demon, the brain in a vat and many other experientially but abstractly distinguishable models of reality from the problem of skepticism are also all possible models to hold onto (no vapid exceptions right). Of course, whatever model you hold onto you most be aware of where that model ends and the experience begins. If where it ends and touches our experiences doesn't match them then it would seem that we would have to abandon it. You would have to reason from our relationship to said experiences to these sort of abstract models of it just as if you wanted to hold onto the universe coming into existence five minutes ago. . . ask yourself why hold it when it's experientially indistinguishable from any other skeptical model without much prior reason to do so. Or if your model allows for us to manipulate reality in such a manner that we ourselves or among past experiences are unaware can be done then again. . . ask yourself why hold onto this model if it contradicts it or postulates the existence of experiences not yet had (nor presently capable of being shown possible).

If you are to fudge a model to allow for your Jesus then you most be truthful about the application of said model to other similar entities while respecting core meanings. Further, it's a wonder of mine of whether what you could say ontologically/metaphysically through your christian existentialism I or anyone else could just as easily translate (language wise or theory wise) into a form of physicalism/panpsychism/objective idealism/subjective idealism/process philosophy/etc. Is metaphysics so conventional?

No exceptions. Can you translate that into Revelation in Christianity, as well as the religious experience phenomenon that uses induction? — 3017amen

If and when revelation in christianity can correctly intermix with the greater web of our naive realism as well as the regularities of our experiences (the conclusions there in) then perhaps you'll have something. . . until then.

So you really don't know how, and why, wonder exists, correct? — 3017amen

Only that it does and correlates with certain experiences (there is no reason to postulate its independency from external factors or its dependency but there are strong correlations).

Okay, so you don't know. — 3017amen

Don't know the true nature of these experiences beyond the experiential but the experiential and the regularities there in I with every other person are fairly familiar with.

And how would you define it then? What are 'abstract models' in themselves? — 3017amen

Abstract models merely are further combinations of concepts that we possess now and continue to learn formulated in such a way that they are implied to be certain aspects of our experience. Giving the three letter word red to the experience of seeing such a color.

Is that some form of Platonism? Or is it some incomplete mathematical axiom? — 3017amen

It isn't platonism and it was never meant to be deductive but inductively/abductively strong.

Is that like the mysterious/metaphysical sense of wonderment? In other words, does consciousness and self-awareness cause higher life forms of life to wonder about things? Or, as you say, does wonderment come from experience? — 3017amen

You experience wonderment but I do not have a feeling of creating it directly only one of passive interaction when the right set of experiences arise.

Okay. so something outside yourself caused your self to come into Being. Is that a form of super-natural causation, or something that just is. If it's something that just is, then we're back to where we started. — 3017amen

You'd have to define causation here (whether this concept even fully applies to our experiences) but putting that aside what I am is not clearly (at least to me) of my own doing. If it was then I'd know and the fact that I don't know means there is something beyond me that gives rise to such experiences. Doesn't mean it just is or that it always was only that it is now.

It's not back to where we started but a step forward towards better specificity.

As do physicists: ToE. — 3017amen

Okay.

...not exactly sure what all that means. I would say to you, don't be afraid to embrace the concept of super-natural. As I said, (in our context) it's just a consequence of temporal-ness and finitude that exists in the world of physics and logic/reason. — 3017amen

A lot of that is already contained in even basic understandings (not being insulting here) of scientific methodology. The idea of constructing better abstract models of reality and waiting for them to break. Acknowledging their success but aware that they merely describe a black box and that their time could be up at anytime.

Going back to the actual reply the first thing covered was an explication of semantics. We can or could define natural in such a way that it precludes such supernatural distinctions. The second was just me clarifying the other common philosophical position on natural laws. Not sure you got this or not.

The concept of super-natural. In the alternative, one could always parse the notion of synthetic a priori knowledge :chin: — 3017amen

Did you create your knowledge or gave rise to these foundations? If the answer is more or less univocally no or probably no then it had to come from that which isn't "you". From outside. . . from experience. . . from the reality's interactions with itself or what was to become "you".

What would be an example of that sense of scientific pragmatism relating to (explaining) the nature of your conscious existence? — 3017amen

No explanation in the sense of philosophical certainty on the correct ontology of our world. Only raw experience and the abstract but useful models we construct to predict/describe our experiences. In this case part of the evidence to start would be that I happen to not know I've given rise to myself so what is likely is that the nature of my existence comes from outside (not me). From here come mixtures of native realism as a model and scientific investigations of the way other potential "conscious" beings interact with reality just as you study your own.

No exceptions taken.

In summary, looks like we still have paradox and uncertainty, inconsistency and incompleteness. — 3017amen

Only uncertainty relating to our restrictions and philosophical skeptical challenges to that which is the thing-in-of-itself. I still await to see a full conclusion that it isn't our concepts or abstract models which confuse us (give rise to contradictions) and it's the nature (the thing that's inaccessible) is fundamentally contradictory.

I'm not following that... . How does that explain the inherent flaws from our natural laws of the universe and your conscious existence ? — 3017amen

I was talking about how some may define natural differently in such a manner that they wouldn't require the label supernatural. There I was clarifying that experiences alone aren't what's natural but what is natural is an umbrella term covering those experiences and what gives rise to them. It's just different ways of approaching the definition of the terms here.

For natural laws here or laws of nature i'd take a regulative stance and merely state that certain features of cognitive awareness/connection to insinuating experiences/having said experiences retain many numerous experiential correlations.

You're not addressing the questions; are you simply not able to, using your experiences? — 3017amen

You can only use your own experiences; what else would there be?

In the end, that sounds like George Berkeley's metaphysical theory of Subjective Idealism. No real exceptions taken there... . :up: — 3017amen

Though George Berkeley's thesis is usually given as a metaphysical/ontological one and I cannot in good philosophical conscience conclude with his subjective idealism. I can only conclude to holding a form of epistemological idealism with pragmatic/scientific methodology to guide me from general experiences to other general/abstract conclusions made from them. Again, as i've said numerous times before, we CANNOT know the true nature of our experiences (this includes a sort of Berkley idealism in which experiences in of themselves are all that they are) as we are only aware of the affects that such experiences have on "us" and the abstract conclusions made thereafter.

Which is full of paradox and uncertainty, and are provably incomplete and inconsistent (Godel). And so how does your natural experiences help you in your argument? — 3017amen

Not natural experiences but what gives rise to and are experiences (what they do or how they do it) are what is natural.

What argument do you have there, that supports the use of the natural laws of the universe? I anxiously await your response. — 3017amen

Well you keep using the phrase "natural laws" and I think you are implying nomologically necessary laws which dictate how these experiences must arise. Rather i'd use natural laws are they are used by philosophers from the other camp of such a discussion, they (natural laws) are regulative behaviors of nature (experiences in particular and their accompanying relations to each other). Why wouldn't we use models which can cover the regulative behavior of nature to guide our actions or ontologies?

I agree. Think of it this way, if someone came to you and said I saw someone performing a miracle, would you believe them? Whose truth is that? — 3017amen

Depends on his definition of a miracle, whether he was the sole experiencer, if others saw the same exact phenomenon occur as well as come to testify on his behalf without coercion, and most importantly what it's that he was claiming is miraculous to have occurred (details)? Not to mention this experience would have to be replicated and investigated to rule out other possible factors as well as whether it was entirely "psychological". In that if we replicate it with numerous bystanders would he be the sole one experiencing it and all others at a loss?

"Hey joe."

"Yes."

"It's a miracle, the sun rose again today."

Explain why it's redundant or useless as a distinction (?). I look forward to your response. — 3017amen

Natural is what exists and either is or gives rise to our experiences.

Are you saying that all historical figures were fictional characters? — 3017amen

Many can be accompanied by evidence that makes it likely among our web of beliefs that potentially you could have had a personal discussion with said person that was distinct from an imagined encounter. . . in other words don't twist my words. If your friend claims he has a friend and he shows you pictures of him (perhaps with footage with them doing something together) it's not to far a stretch to say so this is a potential "real" experience I could have if I met him. If it came to and he was entirely within my friends mind (I didn't see him) we'd be in a much different situation even despite him perhaps claiming he's right in front of me.

Historical figures (assuming were talking about real ones here) = "potential" encounters not unlike other people we've experienced.

Yes and no. We know that the laws of the universe are full of paradox and uncertainty. Godel's theorem warns us that the axiomatic method of making logical deductions from given assumptions cannot in general provide a system which is both provably complete and consistent. — 3017amen

Exactly so we can only work with approximations full stop, done.

It doesn't mean that the universe is absurd or meaningless only that an understanding of its existence and properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought. And so if the reason for existence has no explanation in the usual sense (through empirical observation), something beyond the natural laws governing existence is the so-called logical consequence. Hence the concept of super-natural. — 3017amen

"Beyond the natural laws", you mean beyond the patterns we see. The patterns are all that matters given they are all we have access to uncover what reality does and how it does it. Though, others have defined natural in such a manner that dealing in the supernatural (using such a term) would be redundant or useless as a distinction.

I suppose another thought there would be relative to Subjective Idealism. If the concept of consciousness viz Christianity, includes parcing the nature of both mind and God (God's suppose-ed son Jesus), then reading a historical accounting of a historical figure or person wouldn't be a starkly opposing process compared with apperception of anything from our conscious existence. — 3017amen

Are you saying that a person talking to another person is equivalent to imagining they are talking to a person? What is that you are trying to say here. . . was Jesus a "real" person or not (not purely a fictional one but a potential "human" experience the same as talking to a friend of yours).

It seems to me that being so strict about what it means to know is counterproductive. Despite our limitations it is very useful to arrive at an understanding of any process knowing that that understanding may need to be modified as more information becomes available. To simply say that something is unknowable is to abandon the search for truth. Although truth is absolute, knowledge is graded. — Marco Colombini

It's not counterproductive to admit there is no way out of the philosophical skeptics thought experiments.

The problem with mathematical models of real systems is that they often do not include all aspects of the system. Noether's theorem does not apply to dissipative systems and that aspect of dissipation is a critical property of the universe. I must disagree that energy is a purely mathematical entity as this statement seems to me to imply that it is theoretical and not real. — Marco Colombini

You are probably right about energy conservation not applying to our universe as there are energy conservation issues inherent to the universe but inherent to general relativity itself.

The theoretical doesn't equal "not being real" as newtonian gravitational theory and its applications are indubitably as real as the phenomenon it purportedly (on solar system scales) describes so well. There is a map and a terrain but because the map isn't the terrain (we have to admit this) this doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Regardless of the incompleteness of existing theories when applied to the extreme conditions present in the very early universe, the evidence for the extreme conditions in that early universe is extremely strong. The backward extrapolation leads to a singularity beyond which is unknown territory. The logical conclusions are either the moment of creation or some process totally outside known science. Creation from nothing by God is not a problem…not science fiction. — Marco Colombini

Creation from nothing may not be "science fiction" but i'll wait to see in what manner it isn't outright contradictory/non-existent from everyday experiences. You cannot get something from nothing and thusly something always was with the capability to be what is the case now.

If a fundamental constant, such as the gravitational constant, could have a continuum of values then there can be an infinite number of possible values. If the correct value is to be obtained at random, without any intelligence, one needs to propose an infinite number of universes each with a different value of G for one of these to have the correct value. Since there are many fundamental constants, to generate by random chance the correct set of values (as these are interdependent in terms of overall outcome) again we need an infinite number of trials. Our universe would have to be one of a very very small number with one of the correct set of values that would result in a universe that would produce intelligent life. All the failed universes would need to somehow exist. These are all undetectable and unverifiable parameters in a rather unattractive theory. — Marco Colombini

"Could" is the key word here as you are working off of conceptual possibilities and not nomological/metaphysical possibilities of whether it actually is the case the universe (the observable one) as we know it COULD have actually been any other way.

I am using “explain” in the sense of common usage…to state why things are as they are. Why is the universe so finely tuned to result in the formation of intelligent life and yet it will not reach some steady state where life can exist but rather end up totally dead. In my mind the best explanation is that God created it as such because this is our temporary home. Of course, that is an explanation that strict materialistic science cannot convey. — Marco Colombini

Or this is a question/issue that gives no readily accessible nor understandable reason to human minds. It's one thing to search for an answer to a meaningful question it's another to look for an answer to a meaningless question. Does this question deserve a humanly understandable reason or a reason at all?

In fact, only very small scale “reversals” are possible. It’s more that individual elements in the system can probabilistically move to higher energy states transiently even though the overall population must follow the thermodynamically determined direction. Clearly the universe is a very large population of fundamental particles and it continues to proceed as determined by thermodynamics. In this universe entropy must increase. There is no new big bang in reality. — Marco Colombini

The universe isn't just a small collection of particles as even empty space is seemingly filled with quantum fluctuations and at smaller scales the potential emergence of spacetime itself from unknown quantum properties. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poincar%C3%A9_recurrence_theorem#Quantum_mechanical_version

Materialistic science alone cannot go any further. Because of our severe limitations in our ability to gain knowledge (as you as so well stated) we cannot have any information about God except what is revealed by God. — Marco Colombini

"Revealed by god" is an extremely loaded term on your part as it's implied interactions between god and our universe (or information about him) is unobtainable through scientific investigation (pragmatic epistemology or the literal use of our experiences) it seems that you wouldn't really have much of a case for saying whether a certain natural event was "caused" by said entity. As i've asked in other places, "what distinguishes a finite in time universe that just is and a universe that is created by a god like being (something i'm not sure you have actually defined)?" IF we cannot tell the difference between them then why ask for the likelihood or prefer the god hypothesis over the "universe created five minutes ago" hypothesis.

To be fair and unbiased, the bible is a collection of books. Some are historical, others poetic, others share words of wisdom… The historical books should be treated as any other historical books. They described the events that happened. To discount events that are scientifically impossible is to be biased against the possibility that such events can take place. — Marco Colombini

It's to point out that our full understanding currently of what is possible or could occur rules out such a scenario.

The descriptions are highly credible as is the skeptical nature of those present. These extraordinary events had such an impact on the culture that some of those are still celebrated today (e.g. Passover). If scientific study leads to the conclusion that the best hypothesis is the existence of God as creator of the universe then one might expect revelation of His existence and actions to influence the social progress. Setting the correct initial conditions and properties of the universe were very likely sufficient to eventually produce intelligent life but then knowledge of God and of the purpose of existence had to be revealed. — Marco Colombini

The apparent skeptical nature of those present as they were claimed (claimed not proven) to be skeptical observers who then observed said natural event that has never occurred since then. The bible doesn't give us external sources covering who these people were and their independent accounts but rather claims there were many observers, that they were skeptical, had observed such a miraculous event, and that such an event was seen to be the same among many independent observers. The problem with this is contained in passages in which Jesus is proclaimed to have performed miracles among thousands but people forget that together with the claim that he performed said rare occurrence the bible also is claiming that there were thousands who observed the event occur declaring (without coercion or group delusion or was too far in the back of the audience to see it) exactly what had happened without much difference among their testimonials. Scrapping the bottom of the barrel there were four writes of the gospels (mildly influenced perhaps by each other) and they alone are supposed to have told the completely UNBIASED story of the bible as well as declare exactly what it's that OTHERS saw. . . without us being able to every get their side of the story.

Enlighten me? Either there is a singularity, or some other fudge (poetry). You still have the same problem. — Punshhh

Well this is a mismatch between the map (model) and the terrain (reality) in which were asking how far can this model be applied before it stops modeling reality correctly. In this case infinities pop up in the mathematics and we're unsure what this is actually supposed to mean nor whether the model even applies here anymore.

Can you account for any opinion that there is no supernatural component in our origin, I can't see one? — Punshhh

Define supernatural? Once you've defined it can you construct a mathematical and loosely ontologically significant scientific theory that matches reality for other aspects of it (makes predictions) and thusly also not only "explains" how the origin came to be but we can investigate whether it's or isn't the case (minimal falsificationism) with this "supernatural" component?

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: .) — 3017amen

If by supernatural, as implied here, you mean beyond scientific methodology/investigation and thusly beyond our experiences (the true nature of our experiences for example) then yes there is perhaps such a thing (could be anything from god to strings from string theory). We are stuck to our pragmatic empirical methodologies however and thusly cannot answer said question as only questions about experiences themselves as well as their relations can then be taken seriously.

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. — 3017amen

No philosophy can do what you ask lest Descartes come back from the grave and beat you over the head with ideas of universes that began five minutes ago or clever deceitful demons. Only questions about our experiences or potential experiences can be made sense of.

So can you argue through a pragmatic scientific investigation of your experiences that there was a potential possibility in the past of having held an experience of a human being called Jesus? Imagining talking to an acquaintance and "actually" talking to an acquaintance are two different experiences which we can distinguish. . . which one is Jesus (the purely imagined or the purely "real").

After we die. Instead of ceasing to exist after death, we resurrect in the afterlife and the physical evil is gone, as well as the original sin. — Samuel Lacrampe

The afterlife is either eternal boredom and thusly a hell of its own making or a state of perpetual amnesia/enjoyment that negates our free will therefore negating who we are. The only truly perfect end is neither sudden death or eternal life but a life well lived or deserved. Anything else is a hell to others or a hell to yourself.

How would you convince me that original sin actually exists (especially since Adam and Eve definitely probably didn't exist)?

God, in His true self, is the essence and the highest of all the qualities we can think of; be it Perfection, Beauty, Good, Purity,etc. God defines what is moral and ethical and only that which perfectly conforms to His will can be rightly termed ethical and moral. — Zack Beni

Morality is a human centered concept and it would be equivalent in my eyes to giving god qualities similar to zeus if we gave him this moral high ground or origin of said principles.

Humans are the closest and highest in manifesting God on earth; Christ being the true manifestation of God on earth. — Zack Beni

Now you have forced yourself into the possible burden of supporting evidentially the miracle/God-hood claims attributed to the character Jesus Christ from a collection of ancient writings that may have been about a real person. Separating the fact from fiction aspects of his personality in the bible would be next to impossible though.

The higher your conception of God, the closer you are to Him and are getting alike since Man is ever striving to create himself in the image of his God.. — Zack Beni

A claim you now have to support.

Now since the God of Mind is a subjective one, and the highest of any quality the Mind of man can conceptualize is actually his God; — Zack Beni

Yes, god is a vague mentally homeless concept that has had millions believe in it but either fail to define it, leave it in incoherence, or strip it as far from experience to the point that not even philosophy could rationalize belief in what cannot be deemed mere inner abstractions than a part of the clearly real world you experience.

The definition of God, well at least my conception of Him—which in all fairness might be different from yours— has really been given maybe you were just not satisfied. But I do agree some of the terms were not were explained and need some further elaboration. — Zack Beni

Yes it was all still vague.

A simple definition of Matter, of course from the point of view of my conception, is all things whose particles are in movement, motion or vibration. I believe it is well established in science that every thing in the universe is in some sort of motion which I also called activity. — Zack Beni

I'll stick with physicalists definitions of physical objects/material objects being those indispensable entities included in scientific theories or something similar.

Speaking more simply there is stuff that isn't you and that is. Both of these change so. . .

Substance is simply the essence of this matter. Matter is Substance in motion. When actvity shall cease in the universe, all matter shall resume its original condition spirit and be Substance. Here Spirit is used to mean a condition. — Zack Beni

Matter is just the stuff that gives rise to our experiences or ourselves. Due to philosophical skepticisms challenges you cannot actually know it's TRUE essence and so only its behavior/interactions possess importance.

Physical matter is referring to the tangible part or plane of our planet. I am afraid for the astral matter, I can't offer you any way to experiment with it unless you develop the corresponding senses to consciously experiment with that plane. On Astral matter and other non-physical matter, I can only direct you to those who did experiments on that plane and documented their scienfitic findings for you to judge whether they are credible or not per your own discretion. — Zack Beni

If you cannot apply a scientific methodology to rule in the use of "astral matter" and thusly also it's common absence as a useful concept for understanding our realities behavior then I fail to see how it isn't to be cast out of our models.

On the "tangible plane" you can only distinguish between waking experiences and abstractions from within (hallucinations, dreams, or our imagination) and to speak of things which are meant to be a part of waking experiences but clearly part of the latter makes me think this is doomed to fail.

By God, I mean God is his dual mode namely Spirit and Substance — Zack Beni

Now you need to define what a spirit is and what a substance is.

which are also called Male and Female, Father and Mother, — Zack Beni

Yes, biological indicators of the sexes, behaviors, and social rolls of many animals including ourselves.

Energy and Space respectively. — Zack Beni

Energy (as understood through physics) is a mathematical quantity that is only conserved when there is time translation invariance. Spacetime has its own history of philosophically rich interpretational issues that should be clear in the literature.

This substance is the essence of Matter. — Zack Beni

Haven't really much defined matter here.

Matter is the result of motion and activity of Substance, the female part of God. — Zack Beni

Still unclear given you haven't defined most of these terms nor made much of an argument for them.

But I add that the Matter I am referring to, is NOT limited to Physical Matter only recognised by materialists. In addition to this, there is also Astral matter,... — Zack Beni

What is physical matter? What is astral matter and how can we perform pragmatic epistemologically idealist investigations of its existence/influence on understanding the inner behavior/workings of our universe?

Thus It means that all that exists is the substance of God simply in different conditions so that all is in God and God is in all and thus everything is God but only differ in condition or state. — Zack Beni

Stuff is stuff is basically what you are saying but giving it the word god as a generalized word for it. . . sloppy and a wonderful example of equivocation but still seems lacking in argumentative substance. Nor does this tell us anything new about the reality that we reside within as it doesn't seem to give us the ability to better describe/predict how reality will behave.

By this definition, it is evident that God didn't create anything by means outside Himself as some, in my opinion, unreasonably assert since there is NO THING outside Him but used Himself(God's Self) to create all. And from this comes His omnipresence. — Zack Beni

Again, define god as you seemingly have failed to do aside from giving me rather poetic language that hasn't gotten me anywhere.

One might also say that the notion that the singularity in the Big Bang event popped into existence from nowhere, is a poetical flourish in spite of how illogical that is. — Punshhh

Are you in favor of this particular vapid ex nihilo interpretation of the big bang theory? Given the only people I here espouse it are pop-science journals (to layman) and perhaps also creationists or rather poorly literate apologists.

Consciousness is logically necessary to perceive existence and by extension is metaphysically necessary. — 3017amen

Claims you would have to support through logical argumentation. Showing something is logically necessary is basically just the axioms of classical logic being elaborated on (the logically necessary statement is a tautology).

And that's because the physical laws (mathematical timeless truths) describing existence transcend physics itself. — 3017amen

Nope, physical laws are just descriptions of the phenomenon that are our experiences with the relationships that present themselves. To think otherwise would be to make the greater world is not mysterious (unknown) which is as far from what you have advocated to be your position.

So the question to you is, if our concept of rational explanation derives from observations of the physical world, and from evolutionary inheritance, does it provide for adequate guidance when we are tangling with ultimate questions about existence? Meaning, is our understanding of the nature of existence and its properties lie outside the usual categories of rational human thought? — 3017amen

They already lie outside our (and especially your) thinking because of the issues that epistemologically pragmatic idealism brings to the philosophical forefront. We can only understand the relationships between certain experiences or the properties of one or in general (creating abstractions or greater connective webs of existence) but always remaining surface level. In this case the greater experiences or models created seem to indicate the sort of evolutionary development that you abhor. . . there is a strong relationship there.

The "ultimate question of existence" is as useless as asking "what is the TRUE nature of our experiences" in which both remain unanswered because of the heel that is philosophical skepticism.

Yep, ↪Punshhh makes a good point to ponder. He/she is basically saying you don't even understand your own conscious existence, so how can you, through logic, deny another's conscious existence (Jesus)? — 3017amen

If you had taken anything away from my discussion I had with you we are left with concepts that pragmatically match to our interactions (epistemology) with the greater reality that remains within our immediate perceptual awareness (idealism). We cannot go outside of our experiences to see how they truly (in a philosophical sense being independent of skeptical challenges) came to be or reveal their true nature. . . HOWEVER. . . this means that we at the very least the most we can do is analyze these experiences (ones we "control" or do not "control") while giving them names to denote their properties or relations between each other. Through this we could come to the assessment that it could have been more or less probable that at some point in time previous there was an individual who we could have experienced in the same way we do a close family member but not in the same way you would imagine doing so purely within your "head". The challenge here is for you to make such a conclusion using only the relationships between your experiences (past or current) with their accompanying properties to make such an inductive assessment of Jesus existence.

This is what Pantheism, the true hope and promise of salvation for all beings, means. God is in All beings and All beings are in God. In their joy He rejoices and in their afflictions He is afflicted! — Zack Beni

So could you actually define what god is?

Are you in favour of abandoning anthropomorphic renditions of god including giving him the human moral high ground or aesthetic perfection?

That's why all the great faiths particularly those of the east like HInduism and Buddhism call Matter Illusory or Maya and thus not real since fundamentally all that which changes isn't real but illusory.

Therefore in the absolute sense, your use of the word "Reality" wouldn't be true since that which is Real is immutable. And according to these great faiths, only God is Real. — Zack Beni

Well there are aspects of these things we call matter or the ideal that change. It's your burden of proof to assert beyond our experiences that the true inner nature of said experiences/matter is truly immutable or not. It's thusly not known nor ever be possible to argue fully that the world is heraclitean or parmenidian.

I hope you mean illusory by the idea that even though our interpretation of a mirage is incorrect (there are not trees or pools of water in the distance) those experiences in of themselves still exist. . . illusory only in the sense of an interpretational failure when analyzing said phenomenon with our limited list of human concepts. Our experiences and the matter they represent is very much real.

You also haven't defined god so much of what you said remains somewhat meaningless.

I don't think that works if we keep in mind that there is energy or light. Some substances have no mass at all. Should you then call them matter? and well..That nothing is a negation in and of itself. So its not worth saying that it's not matter. It's not anything. — DoppyTheElv

Energy is a mathematically conserved quantity and the conservation of it comes only from time invariance mathematically. Light is would be matter then that lacks the monadic property of rest mass but photons still exist.

I say relatively since there would still be those even lower you in evolution! — Zack Beni

Reality is ever evolving and changing as few things remain forever. You never step into the same river twice and the previous river wasn't or isn't considered lesser than the later.

You don't say why "it would become its own hell." Remember, the natural afterlife is timeless, thus it can't "become" anything, it's static and so "is what it is." — Bryon Ehlmann

Being forced to continue going but not do much let along experience anything (like in a sensory deprivation tank) would become sterilized and boredom would turn into anxiety. If you could still influence what you experience (that you experience anything at all) then in an eternity of existence you would everything you would be capable of doing and end up doing the same things over or over (given you even had such sufficient an ability to influence what you experience).

Your afterlife (however) is more equivalent to being in a single state of mind without the ability to have said conscious awareness change. You are not "thinking" but rather in a perpetual single state of "awareness" without change. You aren't really much experiencing anything anymore but rather just a single/few states of mind on repeat. . . are you still you anymore.

Irrespective of the validity of your perspective/hypotheses, after an eternity of existence what has been dreamed up to be a heaven (eternal life) would become its own hell. . . that is if there remains a sense of yourself when you were alive (that you are still. . . you).

the paradox arises from absolutes — Augustusea

Which I think is a mainly small viewpoint to take as there are other ways of approaching defining omnipotence that do not explicitly write into their definitions that they can perform impossible tasks which is a sort of low hanging philosophical fruit to me.

It isn't a sufficient fix, because if it is Panentheism it would also entail many other problems such as, is god matter? — Augustusea

You haven't defined matter so I do not know why this would be a problem given in this situation what ever aspects are to be defined as god gave rise to the universe and not vice versa.

and if the universe is a part of god, that still doesn't fix the problem of the Universe's creation, since I believe it would entail god also needing a cause since he would be material, if we assume the Kalam cosmological argument is correct (other arguments to prove Panentheism would be insufficient I believe) — Augustusea

I'd curious know to know what those arguments are but besides that because we're talking about panentheism (not pantheism) as well assuming a string of philosophical assumptions (or philosophical interpretations of spacetime) this is rather dubious a critique. At most this particular part of god temporally wasn't before at some point in time then after another point in time it was (the clay was an amorphous blob then it was sculpted into becoming davids statue but all throughout the process the clay still existed where clay = god).

Math is real, but it doesn't exist. — Hippyhead

It exists in our heads and on the chalk board you write. If anything it's a mirage. . . a mirage gives the impression of one thing when in reality is was something different the whole time but there was still something actually occurring. There weren't palm trees and a water basin out in the distance but it we merely a perceptual illusion as you interpretation of it was off. . . the experiences of it still existed as it was the nature of it or surface nature that you got wrong.

Was it Einstein who claimed that doing the same thing over and over while expecting different results is the definition of stupidity? — Hippyhead

Einstein - "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results”

I'm proposing that the phenomena of space illustrates that the question of existence is a lot more complicated than something existing or not. — Hippyhead

Yes, it has more to do with properties we give it as even under spacetime relationism it would still exist it's just the case that spacetime is more or less structurally emergent or dependent on matter.

I'm making this point in response to what seem to be your attempts to apply the cultural authority of science to the God topic. — Hippyhead

Yeah, he really needs to consider the point of discussing god and the primary reasons to do so. Is it to come into a fully understanding of reality (in which god could be besides the point) or are we more concerned with the concepts existential nature?

turkeyMan, thanks for your comment. All science can say with confidence is that shortly after time zero the energy level was so great that all matter/energy (these are the substance in different firms) existed only as energy...i.e. light ...extremely high frequency electromagnetic radiation. — Marco Colombini

Light isn't pure energy that's sort of a misnomer.

Matter only formed later when the energy became more reasonable. Our whole understanding of the beginning of the Universe comes from a backward extrapolation. It's somewhat like extrapolating an explosion backward except that space and time are also extrapolated backward. Unlike an explosion that would require some initial substance to explode, just think of all the matter/energy of the Universe crammed into a point...all 10 to the power 22 stars packed into a point. That is such a truly insane energy level that it is impossible to comprehend. There is obviously nothing in this Universe that could cause such an event...hence the instant of creation. — Marco Colombini

Here you're are using the word universe which i'm assuming you mean as what we can see through telescopes as the greater cosmos (existing stuff beyond our sight or disconnected from our spacetime) is not accessible to us and we have not reason to rule it out or in.

Gregory, it depends on how we define a person. God needs to be extremely intelligent to not only provide the right amount of matter/energy but also exactly the right parameters for the Universe to self-assemble as it did. — Marco Colombini

Intelligence has nothing to do with it unless you think that the intelligence we possess allows us to walk through walls. We can manipulate loosely the reality that surrounds us as well as makes us up but creating it extends this analogy so far that you would have to specify how you know an extremely intelligent being could do so.

Consider what one would need to do, based on our scientific knowledge just to adjust the values of the fundamental constants so that when elements formed the right amount of carbon would form from helium atoms but not be all converted to oxygen leaving no carbon for life to originate. Consider what values would allow the formation of the compounds necessary for life? How strong should be the electrostatic interaction? How strong should gravity be. If too weak, our Earth would not retain its atmosphere. If too strong, large animals could not exist. As to science, yes there is speculation but settled science is strongly supported by experiments. There is hard and soft science. Hard science is highly unlikely to change. The properties of the elements are very well categorized. The structures and properties of many biological macromolecules (DNA, proteins, etc) are well known. ...and so on. True, in Physics there is far more speculation but that is followed by experimental testing to eliminate incorrect ideas. The events in the past that were scientifically impossible are still so today and could only be caused by the same God that created the Universe. — Marco Colombini

You still haven't defined god without vagueness/incoherency so how can be so confident without telling us what to be confident in clearly existing.

Hypotheses are formulated by making observations and trying to understand these by generating an hypothesis. One could come up with several hypotheses to explain the same observations. Then one would try to find the correct hypothesis by trying to disprove each one. If one's ability to experimentally disprove each of these is limited, one then selects the best hypothesis as the most reliable until more information is available. The inability to disprove a hypothesis does not make it incorrect. With regard to the existence of God, my H1 hypothesis is disproved leaving H2. One could say, there is no hypothesis because H2 cannot be falsified. However, there is much evidence in favor of H2. With H2 many jigsaw puzzle pieces fit together into a coherent picture. In science the ability of a hypothesis to explain much indicates a correct hypothesis. — Marco Colombini

You gave a false dichotomy and misunderstanding as to me (a sort of pragmatic epistemological idealist) at most the only thing we can do is create concepts to describe how things act/behave/relate to each other but the true nature of them is philosophically left by the way side. We can only describe things and if there is something inconsistent with our descriptions then we switch it up and create new ones that better describe it. . . perhaps we could speculate that were getting closer to matching reality but we will always be one step behind it.

You also haven't defined god so we can't investigate whether it's or is not successful in better explaining our observations or in other terms better describing them.

Every action requires that matter and energy are conserved. — Marco Colombini

Well matter is just an umbrella term for stuff which isn't a measure and the mass or inertia of objects isn't something that is conserved. Energy, even in our universe, due to general relativity isn't much conserved since energy requires time translation symmetry.

The fact is that the Universe exists and did not exist. Did it come from nothing? — Marco Colombini

Again, you should specify by universe you mean observable universe which in the form it's right now may not have once existed (the matter that consists of it still did). You'll have to specify how creation from nothing actually is even a coherent concept in its own right.

Space indeed exists. In the realm of science, there is no question that space exists. Indeed, one dimension of space is time. As you know, we exist in 4 dimensions (there may be more). The location of everything in space/time can be defined by providing 4 dimensional measurements. If one wants to find someone or something, the location needs to be given in 4 dimensions. On Earth, the information may be provided in a simpler and cruder fashion. — Marco Colombini

Not exactly as you would need to consult spacetime philosophy on this. . . start here.

Mass is converted to energy as described in Einstein's famous equation, E=mc^2.
Perhaps there is another (valid) example of something that both exists and does not exist. I'd be curious to hear about it. — Marco Colombini

Not really. . . first the equation is incomplete as it's E^2 = (mc^2)^2 + (pc)^2. Second, energy is a largely mathematical entity involved in the description of the behvaior of matter and here you don't exactly get mass being converted into energy but rather put into a mathematical equivalency (energy-mass equivalency). Energy describes a mathematically conserved aspect of systems of particles and mass is a property of matter not identical to it.

Yes indeed relativistic mass is what increases. Now that becomes a semantic argument. What is that gamma term? The gamma term is the way speed affects the mass of the object. — Marco Colombini

Well relativistic mass is a concept that has been largely abandoned by physicists as far as i'm aware of as the rest mass of a particle doesn't increase with speed (it's invariant) and this thing we call the relativistic mass (gamma*m) is just mathematically arbitrary.

Photons are attracted to a massive objects even though they have no mass. — Marco Colombini

No rest mass!

Note that the classical gravitation equation does not work in this case either because the real mass is zero for the photon. — Marco Colombini

This would assume or have us presume a connection strictly between the concept of inertial mass in classical physics to rest mass which may or may not be justified.

I'm a scientist. Historically scientists and philosophers were one and the same. My degree is a doctor of philosophy (Ph.D.). The separation in recent times is unfortunate. I apologize for not addressing your concerns but I'd like to keep the focus elsewhere. — Marco Colombini

Then you should be able to then define god and tell us how this concept of god gives us better predictable models. . . which is really the only thing you as a scientist should entirely worry about. As a philosopher be equally concerned with semantics/language as you are in epistemology.

Yes, gravity can be understood as a distortion in space but that distortion (or strength of attraction) depends on the mass of the massive object and the "mass equivalent" of the photon, which depends on the energy of the photon. — Marco Colombini

The model describes gravitation in terms of geometrical relations dependent on the energy-momentum content of a certain region. Whether it's really bent spacetime or in what way the metaphysical grounding is supposed to go (matter or spacetime) is a question you haven't gone into nor seem to have considered.

Scientifically, the best hypothesis is the one that makes the fewest assumptions, — Marco Colombini

As a general rule of thumb, yes, but to actually analyze two completely different hypotheses with conflicting ontologies it becomes difficult to say which one is making more assumptions than the other. If this is some short hand representation of Occam's razor then you are making the assumption that the hypotheses in question do actually explain all required observations while being similar enough to compare which ever hypothesis is found to be extraneous (easier said than done).

requires the fewest number of parameters that are not experimentally determined, — Marco Colombini

Sure, in principle the fewest amount of experimentally unobservable ontological/metaphysical entities/assumptions would be preferred.

and explains the most about the subject in question. The subject in question is the nature of reality and that of our universe. — Marco Colombini

The nature of reality or the nature of anything is inherently unknowable as the only things we have access to are our sensory perceptions and the pragmatic epistemological idealism we would use to then analyze said perceptions or abstract from them.

The structure and dynamics of our universe is understood based on a set of fundamental constants, a set of forces, a set of laws, and equations that describe how matter and energy behave and interact. — Marco Colombini

Here the ontological rub in that the universe is "understood" or better yet "described" by these laws which we assume (even with skeptical outlooks on the ontology implied by such a theory) better match the behavior of said entities that would constitute our universe or the nature of them that guides their actions. I'll also note that energy is obviously a purely mathematical entity especially since (via Noether's theorem) we only get energy conservation from our laws if the laws in question are mathematically time translation invariant, energy here being some mathematical entity that is conserved.

This is the science of Physics and it is through this science that we can make sense of what we observe both qualitatively and quantitative. With this as a foundation, let's consider 2 hypotheses:

H1: Established Physics can explain all observations and thus there is no God.
H2: Established Physics fails fundamentally and God is necessary — Marco Colombini

H3: Physics (nor any other philosophical speculation) falls by the wayside if it seeks to establish or explain the nature of our experiences (an issue in its own right) and rather physics creates predictable models upon which to map reality.

Basically I take issue with the word "explanation" here as we are doomed to be slaves to our personal experiences and the true nature of the things we experience is always locked away from our grasp. The description of reality and where these descriptions extend to/apply is what we should be concerned with not any prescriptions you are supposing.

Current Physics does an excellent job of describing and explaining just about everything in the universe. This is not surprising because the science is constantly adjusted to fit all observations. The only requirement is that the properties of the universe are constant even if they were to change with time. Indeed, much of Physics is very solid and unlikely to change.

There are, however, problems. — Marco Colombini

Okay.

First of all, the universe is not in steady state but began about 13.8 billion years ago. All the universe began at that time: matter/energy and space/time. Before time zero there was no space into which matter or anything else could be placed. There was also no time in which processes could occur. This event cannot be explained by established Physics. A number of proposals to circumvent this problem have been published. None of these can be explained by established Physics and thus are in the realm of science fiction. — Marco Colombini

Yes, these explanations are in the realm of science fiction just as much as this interpretation (the ex nihilo one) of the big bang theory is. Every scientist/physicists who are atheist/theist have regarded the description that general relativity gives of reality as incomplete and in need of amending meaning any interpretation of spacetime/matter beginning 13.8 billion years ago would have to possess one hell of a reason to extend this theory with its understanding of spacetime (something also not cleared up by general relativity in spacetime philosophy) to places so for out of our testing of it that we have to admit infinities in the mathematics (infinite temperature, infinite density, etc). It's incomplete and if all modern day physics attempts to amend such a theory (as it's INCOMPLETE) would not validate using a particularly extreme interpretation of the theory with a particular interpretation of spacetime (not accepted by all physicists/philosophers) that can even begin to handle when temperatures arise to such a degree. This spacetime interpretation of general relativity isn't even that clear cut as other positions have arisen over the years with some taking spacetime as emergent/fundamental/coexistent with matter.

Secondly, the properties of the universe are such that as the universe self-assembled into what it is today, life could form and indeed also intelligent life. There is no reason that the fundamental constants and other properties should be as they are. Yet, most of these must be as they are in order for life to form. Even small changes result in a dead universe. The typical response is that if the properties were not what they are we would not be here to ask the question. That misses the point. Not only does established Physics have no explanation for how the universe began and no explanation of the reality before the universe formed but it cannot explain why the properties of the universe are as they are since there is not reason for the properties to be as they are. A proposal, that there are actually an infinite number of parallel universes with all possible variations in physical properties, attempts to explain the this but in doing so it introduces an infinite number of unmeasurable parameters and thus it is not a viable hypothesis. — Marco Colombini

There is no reason these fundamental constants should be the way they are as far as were aware (we haven't discovered it yet if there is one) but there also isn't any reason that such fundamental constants could have been one of infinitely many others/a finite set or this is the only truly possible universe to exist (speaking about metaphysical/nomological possibilities and not conceptual ones). Basically while this is left unknown to us we cannot speculate on probability or possibility of this particular universe without first knowing what truly possible universes could have come about. You and I can consider many conceptually different universes but with respect to what universes could actually exist we do not possess knowledge (nor know how we could attain it) to specify what greater restrictions there are on what can exist.

The multiverse theory, if there is a viable example, would have to possess testable hypotheses and hold up to extreme scrutiny to be considered. Though, it still could be viable and where you say "infinite number of unmeasurable parameters" I don't know whether you mean the parameters given can vary along a segment of the real number line or that there actually are infinite adjustable parameters that are also each adjustable along the real number line. . . something I don't think any modern multiverse theory has the complication of being so.

Thirdly, well before the "big bang" was proposed, scientific observations required that the universe had a beginning. The second law of Thermodynamics, a law often tested and always found to be correct, requires that energy be less available to do work every time it is used. Thus the universe started off at insanely high energy levels and useful energy has been lost ever since...converted to heat. Eventually this loss of usable energy will result in a lifeless Universe. Thus the Universe is highly tuned for life to come into existence but its properties will eventually extinguish all life. Physics can describe this in detail but not explain why this is the case. — Marco Colombini

Well in my eyes physics nor philosophy where ever "explain" (define this term) these aspects of our world if at best we only ever know that they exist and all other bridges of investigation have burned down you have to be realistic or become comfortable with not knowing.

Though, when it comes to the second law of thermodynamics and then intermix that with quantum mechanics you can get momentary as well as unlikely but not impossible reversals of thermodynamics. Under certain quantum theories given an un-ending future no matter how unlikely the possibility sooner or later you could have a spontaneous reversal of thermodynamics resulting in, yes, a new big bang. If you wanted to get at what the best descriptions of how our universe works we would need to incorporate quantum mechanics which does possess such violations on smaller scales as well as theoretical ones (via the same model) on much larger scales.

The existence of God naturally explains all these and gives a purpose to existence. In addition there is direct historical evidence for the existence of God from the many scientifically impossible events performed by God and witnessed at times by few and at other times by thousands of skeptical observers. — Marco Colombini

You have a burden of proof and now you must respect such a burden by first defining what a god is and how you know this particular being exists. Then go into how this god concept can give us a predictively successful model of reality that is better than any given previous.

Also, on the "thousands of skeptical observers" if you are talking about the miracle of Fatima no other person/scientist on earth noticed any changes in the suns positions (especially gravitationally) nor did anyone else report it as such doing rather strange behaviors but if you are talking about Jesus performing miracles to thousands in the bible note that the central claim here is that there were thousands (no second hand reports were given) so we cannot know that thousands actually said such an action was performed (or that these thousands actually existed).

I would agree entirely, I just used it since, its the strongest argument for the existence or at least necessity of a god/first cause, other arguments can be debunked in one sentence truly. — Augustusea

I wouldn't even that is the strongest argument i've seen. To wave away other arguments with a single sentence they must of have been rather poorly constructed then.

yes that's correct but besides my point, my point is that god is made up of matter if he is, or uses a part of him to create the universe, since the universe is 100% made of some types of matter and energy,
that would logically entail god also being from matter. — Augustusea

Or that the world is made of god, were basically then disagreeing on what properties (emergent or fundamental) that physical (needs defining) objects consist of and whether, if god makes them up, this means god metaphysically grounds them (or they metaphysically ground god). Much similar to a discussion in the philosophy of spacetime in which some assert spacetime makes up objects (super-substantivalism), it's reductive to physical relations/properties (relationism), or according to some working on quantum gravity that you can't have spacetime without matter nor matter without spacetime, it's a two piece package.

I agree, but here I presumed that he doesn't follow the rules of logic in that statement (and followed after), meaning they don't apply to him and therefore he cannot be proven to exist, so we could basically throw him in the pile of unicorns and cathulus. — Augustusea

Yes, similar to a person who refuses to even discuss truthfully his terms or willingly obscure the conversation sometimes does imply you simply can throw your hands up and walk away. Philosophers can get into heated but informative discussions of non-classical logics while layman may abuse the concept as a philosophical gotcha question to assume the win.

what entails god's existence then and not just the material? why would god be necessary? according to quantum physics it could be an imbalance in a field that produced such, ruling out god's necessity. — Augustusea

I can't answer your questions because i'm an ignostic and would leave those questions to be the philosophical burden of those who do happen to propose answers. Quantum physics in certain stripes or models propose spontaneous changes in the fields resulting universes being created or spontaneous production of particles as we know them. . . creation of the material from these involves some further specification on what were defining matter as or the intuitive/philosophical key points of being physical.

I believe it's contradictory to say God is good and yet I can beat a kitten to death. If he is so deficient in nature that he can't bring the "greater good" about without the kitten being beaten, then why call him God? After all, creation is supposed to reflect his nature — Gregory

You seem to be glossing over the free will defense here as while god would have given rise to human beings with the capability to perform certain actions he wasn't in charge of them actually doing such an action. This does depend on whether it would be a more morally perfect universe to have free beings who make such choices rather than one filled with robots who only ever do what preprogrammed, morally pure, actions they undertake. The real issue comes when you begin dealing with natural evils such as hurricanes or diseases which don't have a direct origin in the actions of human beings.

Yes my argument is that they cannot truly escape it, for most theists anyways (meaning people who believe in Abrahamic or similar religions) — Augustusea

Yes, a consistent definition would be required.

The rock he can't lift is what I meant as an example of him being logically contradictory, — Augustusea

Of a particular definition of omnipotence leading to contradictory actions not that god simpliciter is contradictory only certain definitions of omnipotence allow him to be so.

I would criticize this definition with the same problem of creatio ex nihilo, as well as there is nothing that entails god is constrained to logical possibility, — Augustusea

Perhaps creatio ex nihilo is a logically contradictory/impossible action to entertain. . . then it wouldn't technically be included under that definition of omnipotence if we are restricting the range of actions god can perform to the logically possible (whether they be individual or complex actions). Where you talk about entailment this has to do with what we would define omnipotence as and if your metaphysical assumptions precludes anything that lead to violations of classical logic then clearly no definition of omnipotence allowing for such a possibility should be accepted by you or anyone else. Not every theist is a presuppositionalist or such about god in which they think he must ground/give rise to even the laws of logic or that they even apply to him. Assuming we are not dealing with such a theist then saying you could define god without being constrained to logically possible actions isn't going to convince the theist who doesn't buy such an understanding of god to then accept a definition in which it can do logically contradictory things.

but if he was illogical then you cannot prove him logically, — Augustusea

If we defined god as having certain characteristics that in the end lead to him being contradictory or definitionally incoherent then he would be illogical and conclusively non-existent. The key point here is in specifying those specific attributes then discovering whether they are or are not collectively contradictory.

which makes them fall into another problem, of proving god's existence without using logic, or science, which I believe is impossible, making the entire idea of his existence absurd. — Augustusea

I agree, given the definition of god is either wholly incoherent or his assorted properties lead to a contradictory entity. Only after those properties are given and we've made such an assessment could you even make such a judgement.

But then comes the question, where did that matter come from for creatio ex materia or creatio ex profundis? — Augustusea

Ex materia or profundis would probably involve the theologian here saying they coexisted with god himself merely that he crafted the universe from them. Basically, perhaps, the idea that you couldn't have one without the other.

god becoming the universe or taking a part of him and making it into matter, would imply god is made of some sort of matter, and anything made of matter, should have an origin if we assume the kalam cosmological argument is correct. — Augustusea

No, this would imply that the substance that makes us up is the same as that which makes up god in some manner or gives rise to us. Think of a dot picture in which up close it's made of small circular dots but far away perceptually we gain awareness of the structures that emerges giving the appearance of a face. The dots are not equivalent to the face but the face wouldn't exist without the dots being there in some patterned way.

The Kalam assumes a lot of metaphysical baggage as far as i'm aware of including rather choice metaphysical interpretations of general relativity or that even the model itself fully describes or applies to descriptions of spacetime emergence/creation. If anything it also assumes an A-theory of time which is difficult to parse with general relativity as far as i'm aware and i'm still unsure that any philosophers model of time even has the last word on it's nature.

And that is correct, not every type of god, but I had the Abrahamic god in mind, which is a fault on my part, — Augustusea

Always be mindful of specifics.

I meant Creatio ex deo. — Augustusea

Okay.

God's Omnipotence is defined as god's ability to do everything, i.e. have immense power. — Augustusea

Some theists define it this way and I agree that if they seek to avoid a god doing logically contradictory things then this definition of Omnipotence wouldn't be what they were looking for.

The main response from theists, is that god can do everything, but the impossible or contradictory is not a thing, so it isn't included in the definition, and this is done to save god from the problem of the rock he can't lift. — Augustusea

Not exactly to save it from the rock paradox but rather make this property they ascribe to god consistent with their need for it to be logically constrained to classical logic. The definition that is given, after abandoning the previous, would usually be something similar to "For a being x to be omnipotent, x would only be able to do all that is logically possible". This falls prey to other misconceptions or problems given it's a rather vague statement without too much extra detail but this is to be expected. What are your thoughts/criticisms on this definition?

I think, that if the universe came from creatio ex nihilo, which is impossible/contradictory logically ( notice ) it must mean god cannot do it under this definition of everything, since anything impossible or contradictory isn't a thing, therefore god can't do it, therefore god didn't create the universe. — Augustusea

This is assuming that god could only have given rise to the universe through creatio ex nihilo means while under different philosophical traditions (I hopefully recall correctly) they don't have to strap themselves to this. God could give rise to the universe by manipulating matter as we know it (creatio ex materia) or similarly some previous chaotic substance (creatio ex profundis) or even out of god himself (creatio ex Deo) which would mean god either becomes the universe in totality (pantheism) or still remains separate somewhat (panentheism). Not every definition of god will fall prey to your argument there assuming it even holds at all.

as for holy substance I would ask where that came from. — Augustusea

Holy substance? Are you talking about philosophers or believers speculating on the idea that perhaps the substance of the universe or things within are not the same as what god is made of (physical vs. non-physical substances)?

Ignosticism is meant to cover up atheism, because the person using ignosticism realizes that atheism is bullshit. — Frank Apisa

That's a heavy claim to support on your end. . . or a vacuous opinion. If a person defined what they meant by god or we discussed a known definition (I'm taking this to be generalized) of god then they would have to take (in that context) one of three positions or any variations of them.

If Richard Dawkins suddenly became an ignostic and then someone asked him what he thought of the Christian god he would probably say it was highly unlikely or take the atheist position. He wouldn't suddenly say in lieu of the fact that god is nonsense (theological non-cognitivism) that it also is nonsense so it doesn't warrant discussion. If you thought the later, given he held onto my definition, then this would be a strawman of his position.

Argue with an atheist on the Internet...and most of what you get will be discussions of what various descriptors mean. — Frank Apisa

Because atheist has a thousand asterisks added to by people of all camps so it isn't a surprise their have their own terms defined to encapsulate their position. That's just god philosophy to make clear what your position means then jump forward with the discussion.

It is not intended to deal with ignosticism OR atheism. It is merely meant to tell people what I, Frank Apisa, means when I use the descriptor "agnoticism."

In my opinion, "ignosticism" is for people without the guts to take an agnostic position...so I normally do not give them much attention. I'm making an exception in your case. — Frank Apisa

First, your agnosticism is not intended to deal with what ignosticism deals with. Then we could have a word for saying "I don't know what a god is" or possess ignorance the question "what is a god"? That here would be ignosticism which addresses a different issue which has to be settled before moving towards atheism/theism/agnosticism.

We have a difference of opinion on what ignosticism is. I think it is a word people who think there are no gods use because they are too cowardly to use agnostic to indicate the degree of their doubt. — Frank Apisa

In contrast to your opinion, through my definitions and examples i have painted it as a tenative position you take on the question "what is god?"/"what meaning does the word god encapsulate?". Your test for ignostics of this variety (not non-cognitivists) would be if they would even discuss the properties of god in earnest or with a particularly well defined god take a mixed belief/knowledge position on said god. If they dismiss it out of hand because they think any god is nonsense, but not discuss why, then they are being clearly disingenuous or are using said position as a cover up to hid poor debate tactics.

In other words (mind the language) they are being an insufferable ass for just throwing the discussion out cold turkey because this fucker won't think critically for once.

Sounds good with me, but I will not break that promise. In fact, I already have dismissed it with a laugh. I'm just continuing to implement the plan. — Frank Apisa

Okay.

Sure (in our context) that would speak to the ineffable ; one having a religious experience. — 3017amen

Not really the same as the vagueness of human language (not having precisely defined terms to map onto the characteristics of nature) is what results in bewilderment not the object or thing itself.

That's correct. We don't understand things in themselves, much like the mystery associated with the nature of our conscious existence. — 3017amen

Again, yes, but that doesn't and never really should entirely matter. I talked how we cannot know the things-in-of-themselves with regards to their true entire natures but this is second in importance or relevance to how we actually see reality behave with itself. If you recall (i'm paraphrasing my limited knowledge on this) Hume was rather famously skeptical that there was this sort of casual omph that philosophers or early scientists had suspected was the case and there is a long difficult history of defining casual interactions which would in the end not exactly differ from what would observe in reality. Regardless of whether there are truly casual relationships in the world we can understand a lot purely from coincidental ones as simple as "if A, then B follows". Nothing needs to be said about whether this always happens or that we have grasped entirely all the reasons required for this to specifically take place (or that we could access said reasons). All that matters is that this relationship obtains and while we could continue to find out in what situations (restricting ourselves to our immediate senses) if we happened to find that it generally applied then we could extend inductively to cover other situations.

Or in the case of driving a car while daydreaming, you were essentially driving and not driving. — 3017amen

That depends on what you define driving as and driving for me would mean being consciously aware or my surrounding as well as the muscles using to steer/brake/speed up.

And so the question remains, using logic, how can the atheist claim God does not exist? And/or perhaps more importantly for some, in Christianity, how can the atheist claim that Jesus did not exist? — 3017amen

Well depends first on how you define atheist and it seems you've taken a popular trichotomy of atheist/theist/agnostic (weak or strong) in which we fore go specifics about belief assessments versus knowledge.

I still fail to see how your vagueness opens up a pandoras box of just believing what ever it's that we can. Why wouldn't we match or analyze these claims to a preexisting ontology, epistemologies (pragmatic or idealist), beliefs, or an understanding of the terms involved. Like I said before, to claim you met a person (not a hallucination or fictional character) is a specific potential or actual experience that generally we understand what that is and name that to be the "real" person. To claim Jesus did exist or possessed any of the features he did would require convincing me or others that there was such a potentially "real" personal experience to be had. It does seem muddy as you would think that perhaps you could convince someone into believing a certain fictional character was just as "real" but that sort of skeptical worry is intriguing but not something I can see you or me convince any of the general public to take in full heartedly. . . every philosophy no matter how strange is enslaved to naive realism.

This apple is red. — 3017amen

So it exactly some wavelength of light that is red and not a blending of different wave lengths of light that perceptionally (similar to a camera) from long distances the human eye cannot distinguish.

Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled 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. — 3017amen

There is a difference between "this is the exact collection of visible light this apple gives off" and "this is what my visible apparatus (eyes) can make out at a certain distance from said apple after having interacted with said light". Recall that our eyes don't have infinitely precise number of pixels picture wise and so from any collection of colors some distance away we would think one thing but get closer (a different state of affairs) then more pixels of our eyes can mark the difference. Or you are merely pointing out the limited applicability of human language as I can just call this color which seems to be a mixture of colors (gives similar sensations) something new so it isn't 50% red and 50% not red but 100% ____insert word of choice____. It's similar to a Sorites problem such as where does the mountain end and the valley begin which to me is largely a fault of the vagueness of human words/definitions but doesn't immediately give clear evidence that the world is actually indeterminate/vague metaphysically. The vagueness of our language/concepts is different from the inherent vagueness of the things-in-of-themselves.

If the apple was from a certain distance away (all else being equal) both red and not-red at the same time then it would violate classical logic. To perform your experiment this would involve changing the state of affairs so we were actually seeing more clearly details that were inaccessible to us before (in the previous location or spot) therefore we could not make such a conclusion.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... . — 3017amen

Well quantum indeterminacy is a particular part of a few interpretations of quantum mechanics so you'll need to be further specific.

I turned 84 on the 9th of this month. I am not childish. I have a plan...and I am carrying it out to perfection. — Frank Apisa

Glad that plan includes occasionally insulting me.

By the way, using "your" when you mean "you're" is not the thing to do in a paragraph devoted to what that paragraph had as an intention. — Frank Apisa

More grammar and not addressing my position.

Ahhh..."specific with (your) intentions or the sub-context." — Frank Apisa

More grammar and not addressing my position but thank you again.

You should be more careful with words, Sub. You are starting to sound like a person speaking the way stupid people think smart people speak.

And you are obviously not stupid...so why do that? — Frank Apisa

Clearly I missed that. . . and more childish insults from the "adult" of the discussion. If I trip and ask for a hand will you spit in my face or actually help me (this is rhetorical)?

If you meant to ask if I could substitute "I don't know what a god is?" for "I do not know if gods exist or not"...

...ABSOLUTELY NOT — Frank Apisa

Okay, so are you admitting they are different claims requiring different positions? As well as the fact that agnosticism cannot cover what ignosticism is mean't too with the first question which must come before the second?

For the purposes of this discussion I know exactly what I mean when I write that sentence. I've shared that with you.

If you want to fit whatever it is you are getting at into other facets of MY agnosticism...do it, and I'll see if I can live with it. — Frank Apisa

Again, Ignosticism is an ignorance towards the concept of god and the question "what is a god?" which is a more general "I don't know" than your agnosticism which admits or assumes there is already a coherent meaning to the word "god" in every situation involving the term. One is a meta-perspective and other a perspective residing directly in the discussion with the terms already given or understood. It would be as easy as adding a pre-statement of indeterminacy regarding whether god is a coherently defined entity and if it's a specified entity then you can take your middle way position on whether it exists or not.

Okay. I'll take that under advisement, but I must confess that I have not been "petty" so far. And I tend to take recommendations of that sort with a dismissive laugh. — Frank Apisa

So then i'll wait for you to break this "promise".

Really? Then why would a person intentionally daydream, crash and kill themselves, while driving? Surely that couldn't be the case. — 3017amen

Do you intentionally beat your heart or breath all the time? No, occasionally you forget and those life preserving activities are carried out by parts of the brain that you are not directly aware of. If your brain is devoid of oxygen or sleep you do go out of consciousness or perhaps hallucinate resulting in the exact same situation, a crash. If reality as it's interacts with you (isn't created by you) then this begs the question that what gives rise to you against what ever will of yours (don't think you have the perspective of choosing to be born) is occasionally subservient to.

In other words, tell us if consciousness itself, is logically possible? Or is its design logically impossible to explain? Or, a third option, is it a brute mystery? — 3017amen

Philosophically, as i've explained before, anything detected by direct experience would be a brute mystery in that you cannot know the thing-in-of-itself. You can understand however the things outward behavior/nature that is directly possible to assess and therefore also understand strong relationships between these things. Such as lack of sleep leads to momentary unconsciousness or lucid dreaming which results in not applying breaking/steering when it would be of utmost importance to avoid a crash, where all the terms used apply to those things and not the thing-in-of-itself.

That abomination of a sentence coming from someone who told me to be careful of my wording?

Oh, the humanity! — Frank Apisa

More insults and I fixed it. . . your what. . . 70 or so years old (I recall you saying this) and yet you seem to act more childish than me in my young age. Not so much define or clarify your terms better than it was a grammar mistake which isn't exactly what I was getting at with "be careful with the words used".

Of course you "could." You are doing so. Why waste so many words? — Frank Apisa

I have to be specific with my intentions or the sub-context.

Try that with a bit of meaning. It at least has the sound of something interesting. I'd love to know what you were unsuccessfully attempting to convey, — Frank Apisa

Can agnosticism be equivalent to "I don't know what a god is?" or is it only applicable to answering the question "I don't know if a god exists?" which, again, assumes we've defined what that collection of three letter words is to then, potentially, make perfect sense to apply a false/true truth value. I'd recommend not being petty on your future replies.

Think of it this way, you're driving and not driving because whichever mind was involuntary causing you to daydream took over and caused you to crash and kill yourself. In other words, you're driving and not driving at the same time because a mysterious part of you took over.

Otherwise, think about how that consciousness phenomena is logically possible? — 3017amen

You are either actively participating in the act of driving or you are not if you are day dreaming then you are not driving. Merely the inertia of the vehicle propels the hunk of metal forward and that then impacts something.