Example: most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? — 3017amen

Re this, instincts aren't purposes. Purposes are ways that we consciously think about something. As I explained, it's a motivational, goal-directed manner of thinking. If you don't have in your conscious mind, "My purpose for x is y," or "My purpose is to y," then purposes do not apply.

You'd have to explain why, in your view, that doesn't answer why something like purpose exists as a way we think about things. Can you explain that?


First, you can't answer the question of whether God exists or not right? Looks like I win there.

Second, I just explained it to you:
Most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. Is that instinct or higher consciousness or both? If it's both, you would have to admit that there still remains a mystery associated with animal or human existence. Otherwise we are left with your contradiction of the cosmological world having no purpose, yet the animals/humans who inhabit the world do indeed have a purpose.

I'll be waiting, surely you don't want to concede that Atheism is untenable yet do you? We just started the debate LOL


Let me demonstrate to the viewers another conundrum that maybe you can wrestle with.

1. I'm a composer and performer. I play both by ear and am classically trained and know most everything about music theory.

2. Most all humans love or like to listen to music.

3. Music theory obviously has no biological significance at all.

Explain to me why number three is false?

Most all humans have a purpose to fall in love and procreate. — 3017amen

Re the post I just made above this, someone only has a purpose to fall in love and procreate if they intentionally think, "I have a goal or purpose to fall in love and procreate."

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?
↪EricH — 3017amen

In a Kierkegaardian sense I conceive God as an ineffable experience. Though if I were to put it into words I would say the Christian God is spirit. And for what it's worth there is some scripture that supports that. And of course the Book of Thomas that was left out of the Bible includes Gnosticism... — 3017amen

So just to be 100% clear, your answer to my question is "No"?

I'm guessing, by the way, that there must be some apologist who forwards an argument based on the idea that traits (including abilities, etc.) that are not evolutionarily necessary or advantageous are inexplicable, so "God must have done it"?

First, you can't answer the question of whether God exists or not right?

The being or entity or substance you call god does not exist because, like a planet made of chocolate, it’s impossible. It’s made up.

The being or entity or substance you call god does not exist because, like a planet made of chocolate, it’s impossible. It’s made up.


Mmmm, interesting. So are you saying God doesn't exist?

I'm guessing, by the way, that there must be some apologist who forwards an argument based on the idea that traits (including abilities, etc.) that are not evolutionarily necessary or advantageous are inexplicable, so "God must have done it"?


I'm not saying that. But since you as an Atheist believe God doesn't exist, you must have a different explanation I'm guessing... .

So since you have no answer, your Atheism remains untenable in the 21st Century!

No?

God exists as a character in a book.

What I'm trying to explain is that the 'God' that atheism says doesn't exist, really doesn't exist, but that this doesn't validate atheism. Mainly it’s a straw god argument with which Internet forums abound. — Wayfarer

Everything that exists can be understood as merely conceptual, so this point seems extremely weak. Do unicorns exist? They certainly exist conceptually. We can easily see how the conceptual components of a unicorn have been synthesized to form the concept. It’s much harder to determine the reason why unicorns exist (if only conceptually), or rather to determine the role of what’s symbolized plays in society. Because the concept is so widespread I think it’s fair to say that it’s useful in some way. Significantly, if it was not useful it would not exist.

Atheism can offer valid reasons for why God exists, in other words.

To answer your question, in using the logic of language, our consciousness unfortunately limits us to things like: inductive reasoning, phenomenology, Kantian intuition, Physical science, cognitive science, and other experiences and physical and philosophical/psychological analogies... .

In my opinion, if one personally discovers and uncovers any real meaning for themselves, then one could associate that meaning with a leap of faith in order to make logical sense of their experiences. Of course that would beg the question concerning the nature of Faith. For example, is a so-called everyday pragmatic human faith the same as a theoretical/metaphysical type of faith, and so on.

So, if I say God is ineffable or spiritual/genderless like What I think God is, that would be based upon my inductive reasoning or logical inference of how the physical world [things that are physically seen and unseen and experienced] works viz. our consciousness and the limitations thereof.

That's my cursory version.

That's cool. Is the character real to you?

That's cool. Is the character real to you?

I can pick up the book and read about this character at any time, so yes.

That's cool. It's funny too, when we study history generally speaking, it begs the question of its truth value regardless of the subject matter...

For example, do we really know what George Washington said? Do we really know what Jesus said? etc. etc. etc...

Subjective truth (and bias) is written into history. It's recorded by subjects about subjects. And that's not a bad thing either, or is it?

That's cool. It's funny too, when we study history generally speaking, it begs the question of its truth value regardless of the subject matter...

For example, do we really know what George Washington said? Do we really know what Jesus said? etc. etc. etc...

Subjective truth (and bias) is written into history. It's recorded by subjects about subjects. And that's not a bad thing either, or is it?

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Not many people were capable of writing and reading in ancient times, so personally I’ll take whatever I can get, no matter how biased or unbelievable.

But yes, you’re right about the truth-value of history. So much history is left out of history.

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe?
↪EricH — 3017amen

↪EricH
To answer your question, [several paragraphs of discussion] — 3017amen

I read through your response several times just to make sure I wasn't overlooking something, but I am still not seeing a definitive answer to the question. I believe you are answering "No", but I could be mis-understanding you. So please:

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

1. Yes
2. No

I don’t think it’s a bad thing. Not many people were capable of writing and reading in ancient times, so personally I’ll take whatever I can get, no matter how biased or unbelievable.

But yes, you’re right about the truth-value of history. So much history is left out of history.


Yep, I'm wit you on that brother!

Of course that's one of my gripes about far-right/extreme Fundamentalism. Just think, there could be information out there that could be so liberating for people...ie, the problem with evil, sexuality, and so on.

I've already mentioned my concern about LGBT folks (I'm heterosexual) and the condemnation from the far-right... .

Does the word "God" - as you are using it in this discussion - represent any physical being or object in the universe? Please choose one of the following answers:

1. Yes
2. No


1.Both.

a. The physical apple appears red. Upon further examination the apple is not red, but a mottled color of red.
b. We don't have a distinct color from the color wheel that describes 'mottled' red.
c. Therefore, we say it's both a and not a. (P and-p).
d. Otherwise, in our conscious mind, what is red/describe the color red.
e. Similarly, in our conscious mind, also describe in physical terms human sentience and/or Love.
f. Human's most prized possession is Love

Existentially, my limited ability to reason accurately, leaves me with saying both. To that end, and maybe in a fun kind of way, the concept of God is: God is a mottled color of truth.

Thoughts?

So since you have no answer, — 3017amen

Saying I have no answer, when I'm giving you the answer but you're just saying it's not acceptable without explaining why it's not acceptable doesn't really work.

At any rate you ignored this post:

Someone only has a purpose to fall in love and procreate if they intentionally think, "I have a goal or purpose to fall in love and procreate."

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?

the concept of God is: God is a mottled color of truth. — 3017amen

The concept of 'God' is a concept.

When I watch that I'm just waiting for that part where I have to start shooting people. (I like playing video games.)

Thoughts? — 3017amen

3) You don't know.

You've been very insistent that folks give you a specific answer to the question "Does God exist".

But words have meaning. If you want an answer to your question, you need to give clear and coherent definitions of the words "God" and "exists". This is what I am attempting to get from you (so far unsuccessfully).

Just e.g., here is a good definition of the word as I use it exists

Otherwise there's no such purpose for that human.

Do you agree with this?


No, because if that person does not want to fall in love (in that case), thier consciousness will turn yet to another unfulfilled goal/purpose.

3) You don't know.



Do half-truth's exist?

No, the positive Atheist say's:

1. God does not exist.

So your comment applies to them.

I'm a Christian Existentialist.

Otherwise, I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. Which of course they do, right?

No, because if that person does not want to fall in love (in that case), there consciousness will turn yet to another unfulfilled goal/purpose. — 3017amen

"No such purpose" is a different phrase than "No purpose." "No such purpose" means that they do not have the purpose in question if it's not consciously present. It doesn't mean that they won't have some other purpose in mind.

However, some people think of nothing as a purpose. They may have goals, but they don't actually think about those in terms of them being a purpose.

But it still begs the question why should a human have goals? For what purpose?

NICE Poetic!

Hey, do me a nice poem on God, a mottled color of truth!

Thanks

But it still begs the question why should a human have goals? For what purpose? — 3017amen

There are no shoulds or purposes other than thinking about things in those terms. So you're looking for an answer that can't be had--it's a category error. People do think in terms of normatives and purposes and so on. It's simply a contingent fact of brain evolution. There's no purpose, there's no "should" to brains evolving as they did.