Driving and daydreaming to the point of distraction and accidental death.

Not sure I'm connecting the dots on your logic associated with performing brain surgery. — 3017amen

I can stand up and move my arms. Yes, you can do two things at once and here you are doing one thing (daydreaming) while not doing another as efficiently or not doing entirely at all (driving). How is this contradictory? I'm assuming you are greatly detached from reality given your posts and your insistance of the failure of "atheism" or aka science to discover/explain anything.

Great, there actually might be agreement there. You passed history 101! — 3017amen

So you will support your burden of proof on christianity? That Jesus really existed or was god.

Are you familiar with mathematical/physicists Paul Davies, John Wheeler, Roger Penrose... ? I hate to drop names, but you might want to study some of their theories relative to physical existence (and metaphysical) and science.

Otherwise, regarding "brains" I think now would be the time to explore cognitive science/psychology relative to consciousness/sub consciousness and how it works, since it appears you are at a loss philosophically. Think about that question regarding how consciousness can do two things at once, then provide your theories. Or, if there is a psychologist that supports whatever view you have, please share. — 3017amen

Partially. What you mean consciousness can do two things at once? It can only be conscious of experiences and those it isn't are called unconscious. I'm waiting for your explanation of how our brain and all the surgeries that go into fixing people every year don't have any connection to our conscious experience or effect it (that these life saving surgeries are in fact meaningless because they don't get your philosophy?)? You are at a loss scientifically/experientially. . . remember that jumping in front of a bus will get you killed.

You're actually starting see this existential mystery and/or paradox. Jesus had a consciousness just like you. And just like you, your own consciousness is a mystery, to you. — 3017amen

If Jesus was a real person and was human then yes, stupid, he would have a consciousness just like me. Feel free to support that he did really exist, did anything he was claimed to have done in the bible, or was the son of god.

I certainly don't know how metaphysical phenomena (the nature of conscious existence) can emerge from Darwinian evolutionary, survival of the fittest kinds of logic, can you? — 3017amen

You should know that a lack of imagination or scientific knowledge on the matter should only subscribe you do at the most a sense of indifference/agnosticism but not that it's literally impossible. . . which requires stronger philosophical argumentation and cannot be ignorant in any sense of any field of science.

Literally, consult actual scientists on this matter who have given time/resources to investigating the relationships between evolutionary theory, biology, chemistry, physics, etc. Especially since while you may be perhaps skeptical of the relationship between our experiences and the phenomenon that give rise to our experiences certain relationships are highly well proven to be consistent or reproducible. Such as having interactions with the "physical" brain affect how an individual experiences the world around them even if this relationship truly is merely coincidentally linked rather than purely casual (you haven't told me what this means by you or your position on it, non-humean or humean) or emergent such as in substance dualism.

It appears that your response is indeed acknowledgement that you're without an appropriate answer to the question LOL — 3017amen

So will you take that as evidence that therefore there is no answer or only the answer you desire (can you break this dilemma or mine)? I've talked with theists on these topics and you have said the most and yet haven't said anything at all making all of this a waste of time. I came here to discuss this but you spat in my face until I lost my sense of respect for you.

Are you sure? I thought the history of Jesus' existence defined God? Meaning, Jesus had a conscious mind, yet the explanation of which is germane to the mystery associated with existence, even your own existence, no?

Sounds paradoxical, yes? — 3017amen

No, you're just obscuring the philosophy of religion and theology that has been around for centuries attempting to define a concept that goes along certain lines. You've lumped yourself in the position that god just means "things that exist" or it's equivalent to the "universe" or some personal bit of personal wonderment you call "god" when most people define such a concept to have some relation to an agency different from human beings with specifically defined properties (barring people such as Berkeley but we all lived in the mind of god still perhaps individuated from it in his viewpoint). You've just obscured this constantly for some forty posts and continue to do it when other terminology could be just as usefully applied without said obscuration.

Jesus in christian philosophy/theology is said to either be equivalent to god (triune) or truly a mortal counterpart to him. Whatever the case this is mystery (assuming I even partake in this philosophy) to how JESUS could be both human as well as god. It's a mystery about this particular individual and not about existence in general. Unless you are claiming, like a solipsist, that i'm a god or god himself but just don't know it as well as cannot access higher order abilities associated with such a thing.

It doesn't account for metaphysical phenomena, consciousness, music, mathematical ability, causation, the Will, the illusion of time, etc.. etc., therefore, it is not comprehensive enough. Is it? — 3017amen

Now you are truly a creationist who doesn't understand that evolutionary theory and cosmology/physics are different scientific disciplines or here you're mixing it up with philosophy. You are also blatantly just asserting without evidence/arguments that consciousness, music, mathematical ability, what we call the will, temporal assumptions, or casual intuitions cannot arise through such a theory.

Causation needs to be defined here. The illusion of time hasn't been touched on you just added it in and haven't defined it. If i recall you just defined the will as our conscious/unconscious processes, right? There are no metaphysical phenomenon only what is studied by metaphysics. Meta-metaphysics is a discipline studying why we do metaphysics or what metaphysics should be considered to be and thusly isn't metaphysics, another discipline not exactly what i'd call a phenomenon. Are you knew to the english language? Physical objects are metaphysical (studied by metaphysicians) and idealist ones are also metaphysical (studied by metaphysicians). . . sooo. . .

Language? You mean phenomenology and metaphysics. — 3017amen

No, I mean the abuse or meaningless grammar you keep using to describe your "god". I wouldn't dare call it or pollute the label of phenomenology by calling it that.

You mean it's that which transcends physics? — 3017amen

Metaphysics and physics go hand in hand one doesn't transcend the other as both are required here to reach conclusions about the real world. Metaphysics - arm chair speculation, physics - actually interact with the world.

Are you unable to answer the question as to whether it was your subconscious or conscious that was doing the daydreaming while driving, at the same time? — 3017amen

I am but are neurobiologists/neuro-chemistry unable? Are you going to jump ahead on me once more and assume that because I don't in particular know (nor do you) you are going to assume it's a philosophical/scientific mystery that will never be resolved or assume basely that therefore your answer (a form of non-classical logic?) is correct? Which fallacy will you commit?

ask yourself whether your consciousness or subconscious was to blame when you die in a car accident while daydreaming? — 3017amen

Depends on what parts of brain were responsible for correct motor control and what parts were responsible for daydreaming as well as whether you would or could assign the label of conscious/unconscious to certain processes or to others. You are readily conscious of the day dream you are indulging in and those experiences are like a movie that doesn't entirely (or not at all) come from conscious influence but from parts of the brain that you are not in complete conscious control of or the unconscious. Given YOU (amalgamation of conscious/unconscious experiences) were the one in control/non-control of the car then it's YOU who is to blame. YOU are nothing an above your conscious/unconscious processes (whether physical or ideal). If you could find a measure to tell me how in a day dreaming session with neurobiology/chemistry you could quantitatively decide how much of you was consciously responsible for the day dream/motor control and how much of it was background brain processes then we could perhaps assign blame specifically. . . i'll wait for you to get your degree.

The mind would be studied in metaphysics whether it was purely idealist or arose in an emergent sense from physical processes (which you haven't defined therefore not keying me into your knowledge level).

Can you actually tell me you watched the video I sent talking about misconceptions in evolution?

You keep asking me to define God, and so, am I not telling you what you want to hear? With respect to Ontology and bivalence/vagueness/logic, etc., ask yourself whether your consciousness or subconscious was to blame when you die in a car accident while daydreaming? Was it your consciousness or subconscious driving the car? — 3017amen

I'm asking why you only want to seem to discuss language?

Is that not what we're doing? I'm confused now. — 3017amen

But you also wrote that something is or isn't metaphysical when you really mean't is it something we can study under the discipline of philosophy called metaphysics not that it was actually metaphysical (made of metaphysics)?

Did you not comprehend the video? — 3017amen

Did you. Metaphysics is a discipline that studies the things he mentions in the video. What i've been telling you this whole time.

You seem to be struggling with Metaphysics, this may/may not help you (short easy to understand video): — 3017amen

Exactly certain things are studied by metaphysicians such as the mind or physical reality but there is nothing that is metaphysical only studied by metaphysicians. So the mind is studied by metaphysicians as is everything else that exists (ontology). So under your viewpoint the physical is also. . . metaphysical. Sloppy and useless as usual.

Really?

Tree=plant
Cosmological God=mathematics
Ontological God=the color red.

And your point?

Actually, with respect to Ontology/Epistemology and logic, I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red. Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red. And so in logic, it becomes red and not red P and not-P (principle of Vagueness/Bivalence) which in turn transcends the laws of excluded middle. And so in Ontology, the analogy would be that your consciousness and subconsciousness working together also violates such formal laws of non-contradiction. Meaning, you yourself, and your conscious existence, are not purely of a logical nature. — 3017amen

You're playing a semantics game like calling the universe god and not defining what you mean by god or merely just having the word "god" be a place holder for other terms. Maybe when I say god I mean that chair across from me but that is both useless and meaningless to do, so why are you doing it?

"I personally prefer my definition which is, God is a mottled color of red", what the fuck are you even talking about anymore have you lost your mind?

"Think of a red apple whose color from a distance appears red, but on closer examination is not red, but a mottled color of red." You can avoid your argument for non-classical logic by merely restating that from my vantage point away from an apple with certain laws of physics covering my perception of color I experience a certain specific perception of red wave lengths of color interacting with my eyes and that is different upon closer examination of the apple because of a different nomological state of affairs (they are not the same, being far away from the apple or close up). So you cannot compare them to say A and ~A to obtain a contradiction. It's actually A and B. If you were looking at the apple and it was red from that vantage point but also not red you would have point but that isn't what happened.

So consciousness (in part Metaphysics) is not real? — 3017amen

No, that metaphysics may or may not encompass what was called natural philosophy but we call today the sciences including physics, chemistry, biology, etc. Consciousness or our experiences and the regularities we attribute to it or discover can be accessed as well as studied under a scientific methodology. Scientific methodology is in its purest form only an epistemology and (in a perfect world) wouldn't have you make an ontological decision between an objective idealism or physicalism because it's a pragmatic epistemology.

I'm at a loss over your point. How does that address the nature of music theory, and Darwinian survival value.? Again, is music theory metaphysical? — 3017amen

You seem too possess a creationist mind set so i'm treating you as such. Watch the video it completely debunks your excess-ant point that every single thing I do, think, or am must have the utmost 100% ability to continue my survival or contribute to it when in fact evolution allows for neutral traits/mutations to arise including higher order ones such as music theory. But you also can't have music without traits such as language/articulated sounds and language/articulated sounds provide us the ability to communicate with each other complex ideas which can definitely assist in better survival through coordination.

You fucking dumb ass stop using metaphysical as if you are talking about substance theory in metaphysics because metaphysics is a discipline not a substance that things are. The philosophy of music perhaps falls under the philosophical discipline of aesthetics.

You're confusing a discussion I had with Jorndoe awhile back on another thread. You may want to bow out of the discussion there. — 3017amen

Oh you mean you mean you abused someone in other threads, the horror.

How about you watch this. It literally goes over many misconceptions creationists such as you have about evolution including mentioning that lots of the time while we may have beneficial/detrimental mutations with each one of those perhaps contributing to statistically better/worse survival there are also many mutations which also do not contribute much to begin with. Basically, what you call useless for our survival I might short hand call genetic drift then. . . something which is fully consistent with evolutionary theory. Your response. . .

Not following you on that one. — 3017amen

You abuse peoples quotes and don't seem to justify it? :chin:

Think of it this way; red is red (God is red). Or alternatively, in cosmology, God is mathematics. — 3017amen

Yes, so if call a tree a truck then a truck is a tree and vice versa. Basically you are fucking language raw if I may put in less appealing or rather disgusting terminology. You're using linguistic shorthand to describe the same exact concepts using a new word and adding nothing to the discussion.

Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and the purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. — 3017amen

Yes but it's not a substance it's a discipline of study. That may or may not include scientific methodology or the natural sciences which DEPEND on our personal or shared experiences for pragmatic value.

With respect to mind and matter, is music theory metaphysical? We've already ruled out that it's not required for Darwinian survival. So please share your thoughts :chin: — 3017amen

It may not be required for survival but this doesn't mean it couldn't have arisen by traits that were naturally selected including our ability to vocalize and communicate rather complex ideas to other members of our species. You only need to add in bits of creativity and formulate the same evolutionary helpful vocalizations into forms our ancestors or later viewed as appealing to their ears. Our parents needed to survive but not every single thing they thought, did, or performed needed to some how lead to their utmost survival or contribute to it only the net outcome of their choices needed lead to their survival. Also define what modern evolutionary theory is. You haven't shown to me that you understand evolutionary theory is so define it.

There is no such thing as macro versus micro evolution there is only evolution period.

No exceptions taken. And your point? BTW, I hate to offer this observation or admonishment, but you had been sadly misguided about God not being inclusive of most philosophy, so you've got your work cut out for you to reestablish credibility... :snicker: In other words, what other fanatical misrepresentations are you willing to regurgitate? — 3017amen

Why did you quote mine?

Did we not cover this ground already? I'm not sure if you're on a fishing expedition or a witch hunt, but in any case let me be cordial and repeat: The cosmological God is that which is a mathematical and metaphysical abstract.

As it relates to our recent discussion about conscious existence, the ontological God is consciousness (via the Christian God/Jesus) which is once again, part of a metaphysical phenomena. — 3017amen

So it's just as ontologically irrelevant to everyday experience just as a mirage is not a bunch of palm trees and a pool of water. (If you are going to bring up your anti-materiality note that the personal experience of a mirage is completely different than that of a pool of water with palm trees)

"Ontological god is consciousness" so you are not calling consciousness, consciousness, but calling it god. So you are playing a semantics game.

Also stop using the word metaphysical as a representation of substances there already exist words for that it's a word that represents a discipline of study. You can study music in music theory but nothing is made of music theory.

Timmy!

Not to digress too terribly on such a commentary of human nature, but I see a few ironies emerging here relative to that human condition, and the approach to challenging your (and perhaps other atheists) belief systems.

You mentioned history book. In that same history book, ad hominem is certainly nothing new under the sun (OT/wisdom books/Ecclesiastes). Meaning, in NT, as many of us know, the Scribes and Pharisees often felt uncomfortable (and threatened of course) for reasons we are all too familiar with. Sad, but worth noting in this case. Actually, it is quite existential if you care to ponder those implications.

The modern day observation from Einstein I could not agree more with. He correctly concluded that the atheist's "fanaticism"was alive and well. Again just something worth noting and/or being aware of... .

In my personal observation or experience, I do notice that during spirited debates about EOG, hiding behind ad hominem seems to be the rule rather than the exception. It may provide for a false sense of empowerment, not sure. In any case, fast-forwarding, that human dynamic usually translates into political pivoting first (avoiding answering tough questions), then when pressed or left without options, relegating the subject to either attacking the process or personal ad hominem.

But it's all good, like I say, nothing new under the sun there. — 3017amen

Define god. Also, what do I believe in all knowing telepath?

One big issue here is that you must presuppose a god, then work backwards, only to arrive at post-hoc inferences, based on whatever position you hold for your specific god. — GTTRPNK

I need an external eye to look at how i'm going with this guy 3017amen. Would give me pointers on how i'm doing?

I'm starting to realize that you are pretty much just a troll who doesn't understand evolution or hold such a straw man view of it that it would always be untenable. Many others in other posts seemed to have attempted to converse with you giving rather similar answers or questions that I have predictably given but you seemed to just shrug it off. Evolution, survival of the fittest, natural selection, Darwinism?, all do not require that every trait or action or traits that arise from other traits be the utmost beneficial but that they at the very least pose the least amount of detrimental problems to the organism in having reproduce. If an organism is able to survive to the next generation with abstract thinking/critical thinking skills even those aren't the exact traits that lead to their survival they still will be passed on whether through genetics or learned experiences among their children.

Like i've said before "evolution -> to trait with critical thinking/abstract thoughts -> better survival -> knowledge of agriculture -> sedentary lifestyles -> using the same beneficial traits to form other concepts such as mathematics/philosophy/language advancement/etc." You cannot seem to grasp these concepts either indicating you are a troll, intellectually can't grasp a different version of your evolution, or you are an active hypocrite.

That would contradict what you said about the metaphysical will to live, no?
With respect to metaphysical attributes of God, sure the cosmological God is mathematically abstract, and the God of consciousness is both material and immaterial. Both of them share metaphysical features of existence. — 3017amen

It would contradict your abhorrent abuse of a term "metaphysical" which stands for a discipline of study. Why would (AFTER DEFINING WHAT A PHYSICAL THING IS) acknowledging that there are non-reductive physicalist/idealist/neutral monist/pluralistic substances with differing natures than the physical that make up our experiences contradict or come into conflict with scientific/metaphysical analysis? Explain to me the epistemological gap there?

I'm getting tired of your game of semantics as it had been entertained by you. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god. Define what you mean by god.

By "metaphysical" features of existence you mean the nature of what you consider to be physical (You don't know what this is) and what what makes up or give rises to our perceptual experiences are different in some way.

I'm intrigued with psychology and cognitive science. What was it again you wish to explore there? I think you were asking about what modern medicine was required to help fight disease and so forth, so I'm not sure how that's germane. Nevertheless, would you care to talk about pathology and the human condition? Seems like that would relate more to the phenomena of human motivation(s). — 3017amen

Yes, why would human beings take modern physical medicine to help with psychological/non-physical issues. . . under your perspective.

A modern form of Materialism, correct? And your point? — 3017amen

No, it's just not what PHILOSOPHERS would designate as physicalism because there is another term for it that distinguishes such a concept from physicalism. . . panpsychism which isn't physicalism. Define what you mean by physicalism and not just not an outdated ontological theory by ancient physicists.

Well, the Christian Bible is a history book. And in that book, God became man, who also had a conscious existence. Does that provide for your definition in real terms? — 3017amen

First the Christian Bible mentions perhaps real locations or real events that occurred but has that intermixed with miracle claims that are wholly unsupported so the veracity of many of its claims is put into suspect.

Also, no. Define god. No cryptic language just a straight forward definition of what god is.

Are you sure there was always something? How so? — 3017amen

Because something cannot come from nothing. Unless you have an example of something coming from nothing. . . can scientifically/philosophically demonstrate such a claim? Every experience appears to be linked to other previous experiences or substances and thusly come from something. In fact, please tell me how LOGICALLY something can come from nothing.

Exception taken as noted: It is both. If you wanted to discuss the Will (desire/goals/purpose) within the framework of cognition and cognitive science/psychology now would be a good time :snicker: — 3017amen

If you want to be a truly respectable philosopher now would be the start to do so. So the will is just the random/determined responses that I have to stimuli or "actions" I perform? Or will you better define the will?

Forgive me, but that sounds like a politician pivoting. Otherwise, it still contradicts Darwinism. It still holds that there are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). You can talk around it, but I suggest rather than deny it, acquiesce to its brute fact. Have you studied existentialism? (Of course you haven't, sorry.) — 3017amen

"no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence" except critical thinking giving the ability to produce our own food or outsmart animals to hunt them more easily. Abstract thinking which follows also which has the ability to correctly structure language and thusly concepts to be relayed between individuals such as what to do on a hunt or how to build shelters, fire, cook, create tools, etc. Which has made the human animal reach the top of the food chain in that intellectual regard. I'm waiting for YOU to tell me HOW these basic aspects that go into forming those things you think are not biologically advantages are themselves also not biologically advantages. In fact at one time yes critical thinking skills/abstract thinking would have been starkly the same as basic survival but as time went on and we developed agriculture/towns which had us form sedentary lifestyles then those thinking skills went in the direction you indicated evolutionarily through our development. This doesn't however contradict evolution and the development of things which aren't biologically advantageous but also aren't disadvantageous also do not contradict evolution. Tell me how it does by first DEFINING THE THEORY OF EVOLUTION.

I also haven't studied existentialism and you don't seem to have studied evolutionary biology.

They wouldn't. But instinct would preclude it. Get it? — 3017amen

So the psychologically inherent biological features would play into it. . . as would many other things.

Sure. Consciousness exists, right? And your point? — 3017amen

That's not what you replied to I was talking about abuse of the term metaphysics like some person who's spiritual but religious.

1. Okay, so you are unsure. It proves another point about the mystery of your own existence.
2.Both.
3. In consciousness. Can you explain your consciousness? — 3017amen

1. It proves that I do not know and maybe you need to get off your ass with physicists/metaphysicists to uncover it.
2. You didn't reply to the first time I gave an extremely simplified explanation of what some philosophers mean by causation (which you are too dull to understand let alone define) and mention wonderment which you need to exactly define and specify.
3. I don't see any knowledge? Where is this knowledge perceptually?

Because lower life forms exist on instinct, emergence, etc. etc.. Not because they are self-aware Beings. — 3017amen

Just like dogs which also portray in a limited sense what you or I would see as emotions such as longing, boredom, excitement, fear, or even hatred. https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/the-hidden-mind/201211/are-chimpanzees-self-aware

So are you saying metaphysical phenomena are not required for survival? If so, you need to explain why they exist. — 3017amen

Perhaps not everything you listed gives an utmost definite benefit but the intellectual concepts (critical thinking, abstract thinking, self-awareness, ect.) that go into forming said concepts, prove to me, those base concepts ARE IMPOSSIBLE TO ARISE BY ANY MEANS IN ACCORDANCE WITH PHYSICS, CHEMISTRY, PSYCHOLOGY, OR EVOLUTIONARY BIOLOGY WITH LINKS TO REPUTABLE SOURCES.

Also, please shut up about using "metaphysical" as a describing word there are things that may fall under the discipline of metaphysics to study by metaphysicians but there are not things in the world that are purely metaphysical substance wise.

That would not square with Darwinism. It does however square with post-modernism. And that would suggest subordination of the instinct toward rather the higher reaches of human nature and/or existential angst. And then in turn, leads to consciousness, self-awareness, metaphysics, purpose, will, love, phenomenology, etc. etc.. You know all that human condition kind of stuff :snicker: — 3017amen

Actually it does because you do not live in the forest anymore your environmental pressures have changed because the environment you are in is different with differing outcomes depending on your choices from day to day. It's so simple but you don't seem to be able to understand that. Why would it not square with darwinism. . . wait. . . how about you DEFINE DARWINISM first. Are you using modern day evolutionary theory or are you just a creationist who is using a bastardized version of a summary that Darwin wrote about his theory some hundred years ago?

Sure! Part of consciousness is metaphysical, no? Some say there are attributes of God that are metaphysical too, yes? — 3017amen

No some parts of consciousness may be non-reductive to their physical counterparts or be entirely different substances (or have different ontological grounding, sufficient reasoning, intrinsic properties, etc). Metaphysical attributes of god? What attributes, maybe you could DEFINE IT.

Are you referring to medical science or psychology? — 3017amen

Both.

Physicalism must accept that panpsychism is true. Meaning, in panpsychism, the belief is that everything material, however small, has an element of individual consciousness. I'm not necessarily a panpsychist, however, it's remains just another belief system. Just like your belief system. — 3017amen

Then it isn't physicalism it's panpscychism. Also, define what physicalism is.

No exceptions taken. — 3017amen

What?

I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is.

Alternatively, some link God to causation. Accordingly, I would take no exceptions to that first-cause view of cosmology. For all we know, eternity and turtles were caused too :snicker: . There exists something; not nothing. Nevertheless, you must know something that we don't know, so please feel free to share LOL — 3017amen

I'm actually an ignostic in this discussion now because you haven't defined god. DEFINE GOD.

I don't need to know the mind of god only the mind and concepts used by a particular theist trying to argue for a particular ontological entity.

You mean occasionalism? With respect to god being causative. Know your terms.

Something can't come from nothing therefore there was always something.

Will= Desire. Is desire not metaphysical? — 3017amen

Does it exist in reality and or is an activity executed by entities that exist? Then it's STUDIED by metaphysicians/physicists. It isn't just metaphysical?

It contradicts Darwinism. There are no biological advantages to metaphysical features of conscious existence , some of which I already mentioned (mathematics, music, the Will, wonderment, Love, etc.). And your point? — 3017amen

Not every feature of an animals growth of evolution has to 100% always benefit it. There are little biological advantages to your appendix and perhaps it once did have a use but now it doesn't. Still fully explained by evolution. Remember the critical thinking skills that lead to better survival given sedentary/agricultural life styles later gave rise to these thoughts not the other way around. Stop talking like a stereotypical creationist.

Why would this become a need, so that it precludes suicide? Seems like the logic of metaphysical necessity (your desires/goals) is causing you to stay alive then, no? — 3017amen

How would a person who desired to not live and made it their goal continue surviving?

You may want to study Kant and Schopenhauer. (You've got to do the training to debate with me.) But to answer your question succinctly, emergence seems to work just fine with lower life forms, but not higher levels of conscious existence and self-awareness. — 3017amen

Prove it. Also it seems you still don't want to discuss substance metaphysics and would rather keep using a discipline to talk about what ontological things exist?

I'll enumerate them in a respective fashion:

1. Well then, there appears to be mystery to your physical existence, no? Otherwise, how can something be both true and false at the same time :snicker:
2. But that doesn't explain how your sense of wonderment works.
3.Not sure that's really a coherent answer, can you restate that please? — 3017amen

1. Yes, let's investigate that with scientifc, mathematical, and metaphysical rigor. I never said it was both true and false at the same time I don't know whether it is true or false which isn't equivalent to the positive claim that it is true/false at the same time. This is a claim about my amount of knowledge required to answer the question. . . not an answer to the question.
2. Are asking about wonderment or how we build causal intuitions? Make up your mind and stop gish galloping.
3. Where does the knowledge exist?

Sure. As I've mentioned previously, how does knowing the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle, when I have the ability to dodge falling objects without such knowledge? How does musical theory provide for survival of the fittest, how does your Will (desire /goals) provide for natural selection when instinct is all that's needed for existence, the feelings of Love are not required for survival either...etc.,etc. etc..

In consciousness, those metaphysical languages or phenomena are all quite perplexing, no?

LOL — 3017amen

How is instinct all that's needed for existence? Evidence is needed on your part to support this it's a claim about physics, chemistry, psychology, and evolutionary biology of which you don't seem to know much about.

Here's the thing, people who exercise love and those that don't survive making them both fit for their environments. Cave men had no knowledge of calculus but survived and people today become experts in it but also survive so in both scenarios THEY WERE FIT FOR THEIR ENVIRONMENT. Natural selection isn't just bad evolved traits or good ones but also neutral traits that may or may not impact at some time your survival rate. So people without said traits would be said to perhaps evolve just as fit as those with them and good/bad traits could later serve no use.

BUT you forget that you are dodging once more and continue to assert that "evolution -> calculus" when in reality your missing a step "evolution -> critical thinking skills/abstract reasoning -> calculus". Evolution does not preclude at any level that formation of traits or behaviors that may not benefit the organism but also not be detrimental perhaps given they have previously selected traits which assist in the growths of others. Our ancestors ability to create traps or out smart predators is vaguely still the same thinking used for calculus but you continue to assert that critical thinking/abstract thinking serves no survival advantage. Though, to survive in our concrete jungles today you are required to know these thing lest you not get the best jobs available, survival of the fittest at work again.

I used to call myself agnostic, but it never felt quite right. When I stumbled across ignosticism it was like the proverbial light bulb going on. If someone asks me my religion I will say ignostic and take the time to explain it.

In some ways ignosticism is even more threatening to theists than atheism - it negates all the counter arguments that you cannot prove that God does not exist. — EricH

It basically stops them from seemingly always trying to prove they can see into your mind before you even open your mouth.

I'm a Christian Existentialist. I don't have to, but the atheist does. Otherwise, who would know the mind of God? You don't even understand your own mind (consciousness) and how it works, so how can you expect, using that same undefined consciousness, to define yet another's? Isn't it blind leading the blind? Of course it is. — 3017amen

Define god. Try defining consciousness without appealing to science or losing sight of our personal experience/everything in scientific psychology to date.

Sure, why don't we talk psychology. I will be happy to answer your questions from that vantage point. Ask away. — 3017amen

Tell me why a person should take medication to deal with brain related illnesses. From your perspective?

You mean materialism? — 3017amen

Materialism is a much older and somewhat outdated term that is usually seen as synonymous with modern day philosophical approaches to defining physicalism. Materialism implies to me somewhat of an ancient outdated physics at attempting to understand the world through basic collisional mechanics (a la descarte). An ontology that most physicists definitely probably don't hold onto and have added onto their ontology many more entities those in previous philosophical traditions of materialism would have scoffed at. Again, DEFINE PHYSICALISM? You do it.

Are you suggesting that Eastern philosophy had mutually excluded Christian philosophy? Accordingly, the irony is, I would think having a 'good balance' would preclude your desire to dichotomize them. Perhaps a remedial course is appropriate here. LOL — 3017amen

No, just that literally historically it came before it. They can have or possess overlapping features that perhaps were similar in many ways but different in others.

I'm not exactly sure, but let me try. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies once wrote that metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature, and then purpose of the universe, how the world of appearances presented to our senses relates to its underlying reality and order. The relationship between mind and matter, and the existence of free will. Some just truncate it by saying the nature of existence. Does that square with your understanding? — 3017amen

Somewhat, given all these problems have actual solutions to be investigated and we aren't just indulging in semantic games or problems best dwelt with by meta-metaphysics (something which is, not a joke, exists).

That's a shame, Kant and Schopenhauer are very influential in there metaphysical theories. You are at a great disadvantage in this debate. You will be tested. Can you handle it, or will you cry foul, that will become the question. — 3017amen

Can you tell me why we should or shouldn't give material medicine to people to treat physical/material/mental problems.

I'm not a pantheist but do embrace panentheism and PAP. Do your homework. — 3017amen

I don't know you and did not know this. DEFINE GOD.

The Will is metaphysical in nature. Do you understand metaphysics? You know, kind of like the hard problem of consciousness. Atheist like to use the word qualia which by definition is appropriate here. Make sense? — 3017amen

Atheist. . . you mean most philosophers who care to actually discuss the topic use that term. DEFINE the WILL. Nothing is metaphysical (substance wise) there are things that are studied by metaphysicians and perhaps (under certain definitions of said disciplines) not studied by them. Is the study of metaphysics itself doing metaphysics?

Think about the nature of what it means to have goals & desires. are they metaphysical feature of conscious existence and self-awareness that higher forms of life possess? In other words, who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide? That makes no sense. — 3017amen

"Who needs goals and desires when instinct would work just fine. . ." If you designed the world perhaps that may be how it turned out but this is reality. . . the actual world. . . and it does contain things which act out being conscious as well as possess these desires/goals which themselves can be seen as highly complicated assemblages of instinctual effects but also past experiences, our self-awareness, our understanding of more complex concepts, etc. All of which i'm waiting for you say contradict evolution, physics, chemistry, our understanding of psychology, sociology, etc. Differences in terms of descriptions rather than ontology.

Thank you for baiting me with further vaguely put together statements. "Logically, why do you need goals and desires to prevent you from suicide?" Never claimed this was an all encompassing reason for not committing suicide nor is it sufficient/necessary for every person but that these probably do go into it. Logically if you didn't want to die (desire) and focusing psychologically on future goals was the ONLY way you didn't kill yourself then it would be the action that person would undertake objectively to not commit suicide. You need to always specify at least (simplified down) a goal together with desires with most actions as you usually do something to attain something else you instinctually, consciously, or un-consciously hope to attain.

Why do you want me to commit suicide so badly?

Sure. What is love? Physical, metaphysical or both?


Let me repost my causation questions to you. You didn't even attempt an answer:

1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible? — 3017amen

I see you are now ignorant of metaphysics as you keep using metaphysics as if it's a substance rather than just talk about substance metaphysics. Where do emergent phenomenon or reductive substances fit into your perspective?

1. It could be true and could be false. . . IF YOU DEFINED WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSE. Until you define it I don't even know whether it's probable, improbable, logically contradictory, or likewise coherent. What is this causation you keep talking about OR GOD WHAT IS GOD HERE?
2. Intuition and past experiences. Many PHILOSOPHERS have used the idea that we see one experience always lead to another together with concrete solid waking experiences enforce perhaps a casual intuition. Whether this always extends (the hole argument in general relativity and certain interpretation of quantum mechanics) is a different unanswered question DEPENDING WHAT YOU MEAN BY CAUSATION.
3. Is it impossible to form in a mind?

I'm not following your logic. here's what I asked you:

Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.

Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things..

The feeling of the color red, music, mathematical ability, etc. confer little if any biological advantages. Get it? For example, would running gravitational calcs that explain the laws of gravity help me survive in the jungle? — 3017amen

It doesn't matter if people who are physicalists (YOU NEED TO DEFINE THIS) have an explanation for how it arises here but that when you say it "nor is it something that confers any biological advantages" you need to support this claim that it is IMPOSSIBLE to form given our understanding of say chemistry, neurobiology, physics, psychology, evolution, etc. Also the argument,

1. This feature confers immediately clear no biological advantage.

Doesn't lead to,

2. Therefore it couldn't have formed biologically.

Natural selection and survival of the fittest in evolutionary theory really only care about whether the animal survives or not in its environment. Even a reasonably over weight person in a tall building programming is surviving right now and thusly fit for his environment. Though, why CRITICAL thinking skills wouldn't be biologically/selectively preferred is up to you to support. Also, cave men weren't trying to do gravitational calculus but the critical thinking skills they used in their day to day lives to survive were latter used in one form or an updated way to formulate gravitational calculus. The thinking skills lead to calculus not the other way around otherwise you're inserting intended purpose where there doesn't seem to be any. It starts as some animals having shown learning skills in constructing tools which provide better outcomes in terms of getting food. This then leads to perhaps as some point a rudimentary understanding of how plants grow leading to agriculture then sedentary lifestyles then LESS of a focus on surviving and putting said CRITICAL thinking skills to working on issues or problems you see as having no biological advantage.

Don't tell me what "seems" to not be material when you haven't really mentioned a definition of physicalism/materialism nor have YOU mentioned, to be discussed, supervenient/non-reductive forms of physicalism.

As a fellow ignostic I appreciate that you're trying to engage with 3017amen, but I doubt you'll achieve much. These folks are locked into their positions, and by asking them to give clear definitions to the words "God" and "existence" you are basically asking them to abandon everything they believe. — EricH

I guess ignostic would usually best describe my true position but having people call me an atheist is easier as well as more well known. Most of us are ignostic until the term (god) is defined.

Recently (past week or two?) they've been doing this to me and 180 Proof in at least two or three threads here. I haven't had any noted problem with them before that. Maybe just having a hard time with the COVID and all. — Pfhorrest

Perhaps, thank you for the response and possible clarification.

One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? — 3017amen

You haven't defined what a god is so I can't specify whether it doesn't exist, it's improbable, or the arguments for it are lacking. At this point i'm an ignostic.

Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence? For some reason, you're not the only one (atheist) who can't answer those questions (180 was pivoting on them too LOL). — 3017amen

You gave questions that concern whether we are talking about our ability to know them (epistemology), our psychology, or our social connections which go into influence/form said abilities/ideas. You are doing what you seem to do best and dodge any of my questions aimed at specifying/clarifying the discussion. This is a rather dishonest move on your part and perhaps it is inherent in who you are.

It seems as though both of you cannot even explain the existence and non-existence of those things in themselves. How does atheism square the circle? LOL — 3017amen

You also haven't honestly answered any of my clarifying questions and have merely dodged so that we cannot have a legitimate discussion. Can you even define physicalism?

Well, two succinct points:

1. Ethics invokes God form philosophy class 101. I didn't personally design the curriculum.

2. With respect to pragmatics sure, what is the Golden Rule? Treat others as you would like to be treated. Christian Philosophy, no (NT/Mathew)? — 3017amen

Okay, if I recall the golden rule came from certain eastern philosophies starkly pre-dating christianity. Also, you didn't seem to get a good balance of perspectives from you philosophy 101 course.

Sure. Then let's parse the metaphysical questions, shall we? — 3017amen

Please try even defining what metaphysics even is? I'm curious as to whether you understand it.

Nope. It's metaphysics. I'll give you a clue, ever study Kant and Schopenhauer? — 3017amen

Nope, ever look at any other of the hundereds of other philosophies.

Nice. Well there's a start. It could be any of those domains because they cover the nature of existing things, or the reality of nature, however you want to phrase it. The spectrum is broad, from cosmology to the human condition and everything in between. That's germane to the entire concept of a God, no?

With that said, why would you want to live when you can easily choose not to live? Sounds a bit nihilistic or existential, but your Will provides for that option. — 3017amen

You haven't defined what a god is and in the process display its coherency, reality, as well as possibly even worship ability. Are you committing me to a semantics game of, "things exist and those are god." Such as most forms of pantheism are accused of committing.

You have to define a WILL coherently. Is a loosely defined soul or is just your inner conscious thoughts or does it include unconscious ones as well?

Easily? Choosing not to live isn't easy it compromises all of my desires or learned experiences as well as future goals I possess. There are relationships I've created I do not desire to leave and there are experiences or actions I still wish to undertake. Are you contemplating suicide? 1-800-273-8255

Great, thanks again for engaging. Let's talk about love, shall we? Firstly, can we agree that there are elements or phenomena associated with Love that are Metaphysical? — 3017amen

There are experiences we possess and biological reasons that have linkages too said experiences. Are you going to start talking about the essence of love? Like I said, a mirage still exists it's just the interpretation of said phenomenon that people get wrong. Also you're using a word, "metaphysical", that i'm not sure you understand how to use.

Great, thanks for engaging. Let's look at what Kant said initially, in the form of a three part question.

1. 'All events must have a cause', is that true or false? Or is there some other answer like, I don't know or maybe or... ?
2. What causes the person (through their consciousness/cognition) to infer that all events must have a cause? (Is having a sense of wonderment a human instinct?)
3. In your mind, how is synthetic a priori knowledge possible? — 3017amen

Are there causes for everything? First, define CAUSATION. Here's a start given you seem to not want to indulge in the metaphysics/physics relating to the concept.

Great, thanks for engaging. The phenomena relating to my feelings about the color red, or my feelings associated with music are what, metaphysical? Wait, it might be the thing called Qualia perhaps.
In either case, it is something that is not so concrete. Nor is it something that confers any biological advantages.

Does atheism have a material explanation for these things? I'm only suggesting materialism because these things don't seem to be material at all. In other words, there are many, many features associated with the human condition that seem transcendent or transcend the physical explanations of things.. — 3017amen

Define concrete. Why does it confer any biological advantages? Do you have scientific/philosophical evidence/reasons to substantiate such a claim?

Atheism is the either an admittance of the non-existence of a god (WHICH YOU HAVEN'T DEFINED) or the lack of belief in one similar to how others use agnosticism though such a defined (agnostic) atheist perhaps wouldn't claim it's impossible to know such a thing exists. GIVEN YOU HAVE DEFINED IT!

There are things that exist in reality and are separate from you. That's the most that I require in terms of substance metaphysics and from here perhaps we could interest ourselves in what things are emergent from other things or live in non-reductive states (investigate the nature of said entities). I'm unsure if this is neutral monism, materialism/physicalism, or an objective idealism but this is my loose perspective. Though, many parts (a huge number of them) largely correlate with extensively physical properties or relations in our world (however you define physical). Feel free to tell me when you can use your mind to defy our experience of being rooted to the ground by the phenomenon of gravitation (even objective idealism wouldn't do this but you get my point).

Should I take your inability or unwillingness to answer the metaphysical questions (the nature of your existence) as acquiescence by silence?
— 3017amen

No, and as I already said, it’s arguing in bad faith to even suggest that you might. That’s not how reasoned discourse works, and your petty schoolyard attempts at shaming others into engagement won’t work here. — Pfhorrest

Has he/she done this is other threads and in past engagements? Is he/she a troll that shouldn't be feed or is he/she merely a person with rather difficult social skills.

What method best explains my will to live or die? — 3017amen

Are you talking about epistemology (what method), personal philosophy and introspection (why do I keep living), or psychology/evolutionary biology?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love? — 3017amen

Again, what are you talking about? Is this about what form of epistemology we can come to know that two people are in love? Are you talking about arbitrary but dictated choices in relationships (one night stand vs. long lasting relationship) which is highly personal? Or the biological indicators of people being in love or starting a relationship (psychology and sociology)?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.) — 3017amen

Do all things have a cause? Or are there things that in fact violate say the Principle of Sufficient reason? What is causation? Is it Humean or non-Humean? I don't know. . . maybe we should investigate through scientific methodology and metaphysical introspection. Would you mind joining us?

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love? — 3017amen

Are you talking about neurobiology, psychology, or epistemology (scientific methodology)? What do you mean by method and explanation?

If those are the questions/concepts, correct me if I'm wrong, but you refused to attempt any explanation or possible answers to them. They are relative to the nature of [your] conscious existence. — 3017amen

Yes, and. . . it's on you to tell me any of them are meaningful or even possess answers once you have better worded them.

Personally, I have yet to find an atheist able to parse or explain the nature of our mental states from say our sensory perceptions in both a materialistic and non-materialistic way. A few examples are:

What method best explains my will to live or die?

What method can best explain the reason I choose to love or not love?

What method can best explain the nature of my sense of wonder ?

What method can best explain the nature of causation ? (Why should we believe that all events must have a cause.)

What method can best explain the nature of my reaction to seeing the color red, and/or my reaction to music that I love?

Why do I have the ability to perform gravitational calculations when dodging falling objects do not require those mathematical skills for survival? — 3017amen

Most of these questions seem to concern the scientific study of psychology, personal arbitrary convictions that may not possess a "best answer", or concern themselves with problems that metaphysicians who are atheist/theist will possess the same problem with. What exactly are you looking for? Metaphysics/philosophy in general has had a problem with understanding or coming to solutions for each of your listed problems.

In other words I'm not interested in discussing religion and how it relates to society. — 3017amen

Then don't bring up the philosophy of religion or ethics. Sociology goes hand in hand with these.

Your socio-political view seem to be a bit rambling. — 3017amen

It literally didn't post quotes for some reason. I copied what I said but it apparently didn't post the quotes.

Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged.

Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.

Also, in the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust.

Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.

One central question relative to that existence becomes, how can the atheist make any objective statements about the non-existence of a God when he/she cannot even provide adequate explanations about the nature of their own existence? Or another philosophical way of asking that is, what means or method will provide for the ability to make factual statements about the existence or non-existence of those aforementioned things-in-themselves (?). — 3017amen

Why suppose this definition of atheism rather than the Dawkins scale or a four scale one in which we split atheists into two evidential claims of confidence (gnostic and agnostic)? I'd be careful with supposing this is what every person means by atheist and first consult them personally to specify what they happen to mean by said label as well as their own personal opinions on the matter.

Further, a mirage still exists to the perceiver and perhaps other perceivers as well. Should anyone claim that they are not experiencing anything at all: no. Would they come to find what they've previously experienced as palm trees or pools of water if they kept walking in that direction: no they would find only more sand. So it's real but only in one sense and not in another. . . basically we need rather specific clarification of terms. Such as your definition of god. As well as a clarification of whether you are more of a monist with respect to existence or pluralistic as Meinong was with his jungle.

Unfortunately, most atheists fall into a similar extremist camp, much like the far-right fundamentalist's do. Meaning, it has the potential to become an antagonistic or resentful or 'I've got an axe to grind' exercise or mentality (even Einstein spoke to that). Nevertheless, as it relates to Philosophy, the irony is that over 75% of Philosophical domain's invoke God, like it or not, as an axiomatic standard by which things are judged. For example:

1. In Ethics: Christian ethics.
2. In Metaphysics: Descartes metaphysics
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Kant's synthetic a priori knowledge
6. In the philosophy of Religion: God
7. Political philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we trust. — 3017amen

Thank you (sarcasm) for comparing atheists and other respectable philosophers equivalent to far-right fundamentalists. For political philosophy it a question of sociology and the fact that although you or me may not hold a similar metaphysical position with respect to some general public (minority or majority) it still factors into a proper free system of governance that no one religion should take special precedence or political power directly, that is unless you desire to begin a modern religious crusade through avenues of persecution.

In the philosophy of religion there is the study of religion which has god in it which mean that if you want to study religion which has god in you will study religion and also god. . . why this wouldn't be included you explain to me.

Ethics? The only ethics that should be of concern are our interpersonal relationships, values, particular situations, and our psychology which intermingle on a daily level. Even those who advocate christian ethics must at least admit that their metaphysical opinions to the subject matter take a second seat to pragmatic concerns. God isn't going to ever be called to a witness stand or be a part of a jury as it will always be humans judging humans.

Metaphysics and philosophy? There are people that are theists in philosophy and metaphysics. . . this is such a shock I would have never discovered it without your help. But for real, no atheist should be either denying that such philosophies or perspectives not exist let alone that such discussions have or do take place. At least I don't and I would take on such a label of atheist. . . don't straw man me please.

Yes, super-substantivalism seems to be a correct label for my interpretation. I just noted that in the general definition of a space in mathematics/set theory, the points of space can be any objects, so the simplest way of connecting the geometric properties of a space and the properties of matter (energy and momentum) seems to be to encode the properties of matter in the points of the space. Treating matter as a different substance than space would require introduction of a new relation of "occupation" between matter and space, the meaning of which is not clear to me but I guess we can't rule out such an additional relation and its physical distinguishability since general relativity is an incomplete theory.

If matter is a different substance than space, I would say that space is more fundamental than matter in the sense that you can define a space without matter but you can't define matter (energy and momentum) without a space (speed figures in E = mc^2, p = mv). In the paper on super-substantivalism that you linked, in footnote 26 there is a reference to theories of quantum gravity that derive spacetime as a macroscopic emergent entity from an underlying spaceless and timeless "quantum matter", but does this "quantum matter" have the properties of energy and momentum or does it acquire these properties only on the macro scale with reference to spacetime? If it doesn't have energy and momentum below the scale of spacetime maybe we should call it something else than matter. Or maybe we could regard it as an internal structure of spacetime points that encodes properties like energy and momentum which however have no meaning without reference to distances between spacetime points; this leads us back to super-substantivalism. — litewave

I'd say this is a rather respectful position to partake in as it's probably rather a common intuition among both relationists/substantivalists that although you may strip spacetime of many features (absolute structure, simultaneity, space/time split, symmetry in time, etc) there will at the bottom be characteristics that seem to be indispensable. For example, a large collection of traditions in relationism construct or more deconstruct spacetime by relying on material properties and a distance relation to each other. Basically in most traditions i've seen they assume at the least that there is perhaps an inherent metric structure (distance relations) or at least an affine one as well as assume among your "occupation" relation between spacetime locations to be linked with matter there is also probably implicitly assumed a "co-location" property that designates whether two things overlap or not, or whether they connect. Most relationism however goes for the lest amount of features possible to formulate a working theory of spacetime. Think of galilean spacetime which assumes that acceleration/rotation are absolute as well as there being global planes of simultaneity but also avoids the useless postulation of a privileged inertial reference frame.

Regarding the fundamentals of time, I also question whether metaphysicians are equipped to answer it. Physicists are exploring it (see Time: An Emergent Property of Matter). — Relativist

We need to make a distinction between abstractions/quantitative theories of our reality and the interpretations of those theories (from metaphysics) that go into deciding our ontology.

What is "proper time"? — Relativist

How do not know this? It's the time measured by a clock that remains in your frame of reference or world line in special relativity.

Special relativity and Page-Wooters clearly show that time is weirder than anyone would have thought. Weirdness like this is not going to be uncovered without new Physics. If Physics can't do it, there's no hope for Metaphysicians. — Relativist

Philosophical interpretations of special relativity have shown time is weirder than what is expected from everyday experiences. This is an interpretation however that is parasitic upon other philosophical assumptions and the mathematics involved. Literally just look at the numerous different interpretations of quantum mechanics despite their use of the exact same mathematics. I'm not saying don't prod at the world as this would probably be in contradiction to strategies/epistemologies that certain metaphysicians take on (some of which go by the label of naturalized metaphysicians) just that raw sensory data gets you no where without an investigation of what it really means before going forward.

This is the nature of scientific revolutions. Without science investigation, metaphysicians would be spinning their wheels and getting nowhere. — Relativist

And without metaphysics we wouldn't know what were uncovering nor where to proceed next.

Feel free to enlighten me. My impression is that one could say physicists engage in metaphysics when they develop concepts (like the curvature of space and interpretations of quantum mechanics). If you'd like to divide the work of physicists this way, I have no objection, and I think philosophical reflection is important. My main issue is that the relevant paradigm shifts only occur because of new physics, not because of this philosophical reflection. — Relativist

Physicists can construct new theories that bring about paradigm shifts but they have to do so under the bias of an already preconceived ontology which may or may not be justified. Take general relativity in which it's popular to envision a substantival real existent spacetime which is curved when in reality physicists should be rather dumbfounded as most analysis i've seen into general relativity make the question of whether there is or isn't a real existent spacetime being curved rather unclear. Perhaps physics enjoys throwing numerous metaphysical concepts at the wall until one sticks experimentally.

I'm open to considering the value of metaphysical analysis in this regard, but it was physics - not metaphysics- that showed time is not absolute, that it is relative to a reference frame (i.e. special relativity). It is physics that showed space and time are coupled, and identified the "problem of time". And it's physicists who are exploring what may be the fundamental basis of time. — Relativist

Technically that is just one metaphysical or philosophical interpretation that we could glean from special relativity. Ignoring whether time in that theory exists separate with respect to the change of material objects we still may even have philosophical objections to exactly treating the theory as making time non-absolute. You got your Lorentz ether theory, interpretations of the theory which stress dynamical symmetries being prior to spacetime symmetries, and also questions about what matters when we say something is real in the theory as a question about invariant quantities (such as rest mass). It's unquestionably always the case that proper time is invariant while coordinate time is not because it's an outside analysis done onto other inertial frames of reference. I'm highly skeptical of physical theories which stress such absolute features as fundamental to time but also to physicists who believe they can attain change/time from unchanging/timeless entities.

All you need to do is imagine pure potentiality flowing or falling, or however you like, into actuality. I really have no problem doing this, and so the whole God thing doesn't matter to me anymore — Gregory

Are you partial therefore to process philosophy or a modern rendition of Heraclitus perspective of the world as in constant flux.

That makes sense, but I don't believe in an infinite universe anways. — Gregory

Do mean extension or temporally? If temporally that's fine but to assume a finite scale to the universe either puts us in the direction of a curved 3-sphere (curvature we have measured means it's close to being rather flat) or is literally finite in extension in all directions but this is rather strange.