Absolutely; faith, hope and love!

Sure, beyond the religious experience, only a God would know the nature of existence.

I'm not sure I would say abstract here. Abstraction brings to talking about some similarity between existing things. Sort of liking talking about the fact your two books and two forks are similar. While not strictly inaccurate, it's true these things share meaning, it's not the angle I was wanting to come form.

Rather than trying to talk about how some things might be similar, I was going for a recognition of a necessary truth itself. Instead of trying to talk about how your books and forks shared the meaning of two, I had in mind adressing two itself. The necessary meaning, true regardless of what exists.

Whether God amounts to a necessary metaphysical truth depends on which notion of God you are talking about. Some gods or Gods are empirical , beings who act within the world, who could possibly exist or not.

Other notions of God are metaphysical, supposing a necessity which has no empirical presence or existence.

Most religous accounts are some incohrent confusion of the two.

And how do you know God is not ineffable? — 3017amen

:roll:

Aren't all metaphysical theories unsupported/incoherent/illogical? — 3017amen

If they are "theories", that is, conjectures attempting to explain X, then yes - because they, being properly "metaphysical", must be so general that any "support" for an explanation would presuppose the explanation itself, thereby begging the question. Such "theories" are merely pseudo-theories ... philosophy (i.e. metaphysics), as I understand it, elucidates critiques problematizes & speculates (i.e. proposes formal/conceptual Criteria or Methods) but does not theorize, or explain, as formal, natural or social sciences do.

why do you feel the need to contribute anything on this subject matter — 3017amen

You claimed that atheism is untenable, I'm an atheist. I'm obviously concerned to check that my beliefs are not actually untenable. Did you not expect any atheists to reply?

my thought is if you were content, you would not be interested. But then the more I'm thinking about it, maybe it's your innate sense of wonder that's causing your curiosity — 3017amen

I think it's my innate sense of curiosity that's causing my curiosity.

For the umpteenth time - what has any of this got to do with atheism?

I just need the tiniest link you're trying to make between being curious about existential mysteries and deciding that God is somehow the answer to them (you could go on to explain exactly how 'God' is and answer to them too if you can, but answer the first question first...)

Why can I not be an atheist and yet still wonder about the existential mysteries which remain unanswered, while wondering for you, as a theist, remains consistent?

Rather than trying to talk about how some things might be similar, I was going for a recognition of a necessary truth itself.

Hey guys, as apposed to asking more questions, for the time being, here’s my short Metaphysical theory based upon the Kantian cosmological judgement: All events must have a cause:

Consider a necessary consciousness (some people say necessary Being):

A. There is at least one true proposition
B. That proposition is false.

Is A necessarily true? Suppose I contend that A is false. Call that proposition B. But if A is false, so is B, because B is a proposition. And if A is false there are no true propositions. So A must be true.

It is therefore logically impossible for there to exist no true propositions.

In an analogous way, how can a necessary (a priori) Being or consciousness be the first cause in a contingent deterministic world? A dipolar God could.

Consider the cosmological computer brain. The hardware is the fixed a priori thing-in-itself. The software is the deterministic cause and effect programing. That software represents free will, only in terms of the limited scope of computer program choices that are designed into it.

Feel free to parse and ponder

I appreciate that you wrote all of that, but you're not understanding the question I asked.

I was asking you a simple question about semantics with respect to sentence structure.

We can make two different queries:

(1) "Explain the nature of your belief that P"

(2) "Explain your belief that P"

The queries have the same sentential structure with the exception that the first one adds "the nature of."

What I'm asking you is what, semantically, does "in the nature of" change about the query? Is (1) really asking anything different than (2) is asking? (Or alternately, is "the nature of" kind of a verbal "engine revving"?)

By the way, my degrees are in philosophy and music theory/composition--so we have those two things in common.

Firstly, I appreciate you sharing that personal bit of info.

Secondly, unless I'm missing something, philosophically, my answer is real simple.

The nature of= Kantian things-in-themselves.

And oh by the way, don't you know kabasi is bad for you (reminds me of Pa.) LOL

So, your belief as a noumenon rather than your belief as a phenomenon?

I wouldn't be sure how to make sense out of that. But I'm not much of a Kantian in general. I don't buy the phenomena/noumena distinction, really.

necessary consciousness (some people say necessary Being) — 3017amen

That'd be a strong bare assertion at best, incoherent at worst.

Consciousness is not necessary in general, since there are simple possible worlds (self-consistent wholes) without. But necessities hold for all possible worlds.

Unless you mean consciousness is necessary for our world (or you've abandoned possible world semantics of modal logic) or something?

Yeah TS, I'm on the fence about that distinction as well. I guess in Kant's mind, he was thinking that noumenon was the result of transcending phenomenon. And so the logic there is that noumenon would consist of Metaphysically independent existing things, if you will. I certainly get that possibility, from a cosmological standpoint.

In my mind, metaphysical things are simply that, parts of unexplained things that we wonder about. But when we talk about consciousness/causation in the physical world, we can't help but incorporate that kind of thinking...I suppose a materialist won't though...

(Otherwise I'm fine with thinking about consciousness phenomena as a metaphysical thing.)

Unless you mean consciousness is necessary for our world (or you've abandoned possible world semantics of modal logic) or something? — jorndoe

Hey jorn, that's a great question. I view consciousness as metaphysical necessity. I used the propositional example to demonstrate our sense of logical truth, or objective truth as it were.

In other words, consciousness and its primacy is required or needed to understand (apprehend) all forms of necessity and necessary truths, right?

"(T)he impious man is not he who denies the gods of the many, but he who attaches to the gods the beliefs of the many." ~Epicurus

@OP -

Seems to me quite the "tenable" 21st century position ...

Atheism does not address the question "Does god exist, or does god not exist".

It addresses the truth-values of theism, starting first with it's sin qua non fundamental claims on reality.

Theism is false, therefore god does not exist. Inexplicable "Gods" with no claims/predicates are irrelevant to atheism.

People are arguing the wrong thing. As usual. — Swan

:death: :flower:

\

Hey 180, wow, now there's a novel proposition to parse:

"Theism is false, therefore god does not exist"

1. Is that what you believe?
2. If so, can you prove it to me?


tick tock tick tock

“The moon was a ghostly galleon tossed upon cloudy seas”

I like to think that I appreciate poetry as much as the next person on the street. You can do cool things with poetry that you can’t do with plain language or logic. I remember The Highwayman by Alfred Noyes as one of the first poems I was taught in school. Besides having alliteration, this line has one of the all time classic metaphors. “The moon was a ghostly galleon”. You can picture it in your minds eye. Oooh - nice one there Alfred.

But of course we all recognize that this is a poem - and in reality the moon is most definitely not a ghostly galleon; it’s a giant hunk of rock orbiting around the earth roughly once every 28 days.

So when we look at your posts, we see a series of metaphors & images - but nothing that connects with reality.

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.

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. — 3017amen

I'm comfortable with half-truth's existing. Which of course they do, right? — 3017amen

Umm, no. Truths do not exist, half truths do not exist, and lies do not exist. Physical objects exist.

Pretty much everything you are saying falls into the same trap - the words may sound pretty to you, but there is no logic, no reason, and unfortunately no rhyme (which might at least make what you’re saying fun to read).

I much prefer @PoeticUniverse's musings. @PoeticUniverse, if you’re reading this, I would be honored if you could make a poem out of what I'm saying.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

All that said, I am not telling you to abandon your beliefs. I was not aware of Christian Existentialism until you brought it up, so I have learned something new from this exchange. If your beliefs help you to make sense of your life and give you comfort, far be it from me to tell you otherwise. Compared to the more fundamentalist religions of the world, your beliefs seem relatively harmless.

I am under no illusions that you will read this and say to yourself, “Oh no - everything I’ve believed in all my life is wrong”. But try to accept that all religion beliefs are irrational and have no basis in reality.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

And all that said, I actually agree in part with some of your critiques of Atheism. But as an Ignostic I have no skin in this particular game. And so I will leave you with the last word. . . .

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


A metaphysically spiritual/genderless ineffable Being? The only answer that makes the most sense relative to how you worded the question would be, NO. Unless you can explain, materially, our own conscious existence. But then, we probably wouldn't be having this discussion right?

Truths do not exist, half truths do not exist


Are you sure? From the ideas set forth in the OP ( I apologize for some redundancy here), if I'm driving my car down the road daydreaming, have an accident and kill myself, was it my consciousness or subconsciousness that caused me to die?

Otherwise, you said, "Truth's do not exist" .... Say wha…???

And hey, I appreciate your commentary, thanks. Until humans can explain consciousness (which will never happen), then as you say, maybe we will all have more 'skin in the game'. On the other hand, it might just be the game changer! LOL

B well.

Conscious beings are existing states. There can be no necessary consciousness. The context of a conscious being supposes the existence or non existence of an entity with experience.

Necessary being, by definition, cannot be subject to such possibilities because it is always true. It cannot be a conscious being because necessary being is so regardless of what exists. When conscious beings do not exist at at all, necessary being is still the case, same as when conscious beings do exist.

"Theism is false, therefore god does not exist" — 3017amen quoting Swan

More precisely:

Theism is false, therefore

(1) every theistic g/G concept is an empty name - without referent (e.g. "5-sided triangle" or "flat earth" ... or "Zeus" "Huītzilōpōchtli" "Vishnu" "Nana Buluku" "YHWH" ... ),

(2) theology (i.e. theodicy) derived from (1) is incoherent,

and (3) theistic religions are immoral, at least insofar as they indoctrinate & ritualize falsehoods-as-truths (i.e. fairytales) which reinforce inexorably maladaptive magical thinking.

1. Is that what you believe? — 3017amen

Yeah.

2. If so, can you prove it to me? — 3017amen

Of course.

tick tock tick tock — 3017amen

Sub specie aeternitatis, that's ... 'foolishness to us'.

:naughty:

'foolishness to us'. — 180 Proof

Who is more foolish - the fool, or we who engage the fool in conversation, expecting reason?

The fool is still the fool. There is nothing wrong with having discussion(s)/conversation with fools. We do this daily, actually. Without expecting some well reasoned answer - but if you are more intelligent (i.e. skillful..) than the 'fool', it isn't a problem to talk with them, even have derive fun out of them... if not still extract something from even foolish answers, even if they themselves, cannot give you anything better.

Talking with fools only becomes FOOLISH, as I see it, when you are attempting to convince them of something (they don't have the capacity to understand or the integrity to investigate), which I don't think anyone here is trying to do, except other fools... You can surely distinguish between the two, so yeah, he is playing around with the guy (having fun with 'em...) in case you haven't noticed, not losing much... :cry:

Who is more foolish - the fool, or we who engage the fool in conversation, expecting reason? — Banno

Yeah "expecting reason" is almost always a mug's game. Playing the odds, like Swan suggests, I only expect to shame 'em a little ...

@3017amen Grow up a little, please.

I view consciousness as metaphysical necessity — 3017amen

How come?
As mentioned, there are simple possible worlds without, absence thereof is hardly impossible.
(Hence why I asked if you meant that consciousness is necessary for our world.)

In other words, consciousness and its primacy is required or needed to understand (apprehend) all forms of necessity and necessary truths, right? — 3017amen

Skipping "primacy" — to understand/apprehend, sure.
But I wouldn't mix up belief/knowledge and truth/ontology.
Knowledge depends on truth, not vice versa.

Great questions...just for a starting point of discussion:

"Metaphysical necessity is contrasted with other types of necessity. For example, the philosophers of religion John Hick[2] and William L. Rowe[3] distinguished the following three:

1.factual necessity (existential necessity): a factually necessary being is not causally dependent on any other being, while any other being is causally dependent on it.
2.causal necessity (subsumed by Hicks under the former type): a causally necessary being is such that it is logically impossible for it to be causally dependent on any other being, and it is logically impossible for any other being to be causally independent of it.
3.logical necessity: a logically necessary being is a being whose non-existence is a logical impossibility, and which therefore exists either timeless or eternally in all possible worlds."


Jorndoe, I look at things a little differently:

1. I think mathematics is a metaphysical language.
2. I think consciousness is a metaphysical thing.
3. I think language itself is a metaphysical thing.

Whether any of those exist in other possible worlds is not answerable. But what we do know, is that consciousness exists.

Feel free to parse and ponder

metaphysical language.
2. I think consciousness is a metaphysical thing.
3. I think language itself is a metaphysical thing. — 3017amen

It would be helpful if you understood what "metaphysics" even is.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/metaphysics/

Hi Atemis!

Thanks! I'm still wondering though, about this paradoxical conundrum of sorts ( metaphysical/consciousness) , perhaps you can help me with it (sorry for the redundancy):

I'm driving down the road, daydreaming, and have an accident and kill myself. Was it my subconscious or consciousness that caused that to happen?

And from the OP, what is this feeling known as Love, is that metaphysical you think?

By the way, atheism has zero connection to evolutionary theory. — Terrapin Station

That's not true. Richard Dawkins has said that evolution has made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist. It is possible for someone to hold to the view of theistic evolution - that is, that God used the process of evolution as his method of achieving diversity of life. But it is incorrect to say that "evolution has zero connection to evolutionary theory."

Also, I would point out that evolutionary theory is closely tied to the theory of abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is an hypothesis in distress. Sometimes people claim there is no relation between abiogenesis and evolution, but that is not true. Charles Darwin proposed both ideas. In a letter, Darwin suggested the first life could have arisen "in a warm little pond." At the time, no one understood how complex life was and so Darwin's proposal seemed plausible, but the more we study unicellular life, the more we understand how complex it is.

Of course, abiogenesis and evolution were more plausible than the atheist positions in Isaac Newton's day. In Newton's day, atheists proposed the spontaneous generation of humans. They claimed that humans did not need to be created by God, the first humans probably just popped into existence long ago. Seems like a crazy idea, right? Now we understand that abiogenesis is just about as crazy.

That's not true — Ron Cram

Yeah, it is true. Atheism only refers to the lack of a belief in gods. You can think that evolution--or even all of science--is complete hogwash and still be just as much of an atheist.

Yeah, it is true. Atheism only refers to the lack of a belief in gods. You can think that evolution--or even all of science--is complete hogwash and still be just as much of an atheist. — Terrapin Station

I don't know why people find this so hard to get. Like, is it something in the water?

Like - you can believe in Harry Potter and Hogwarts and still be an atheist. Still an idiot. But idiot atheist nonetheless.

Or it's like telling a theist that he or she really must believe in animal sacrifice. Like, no, you complete intellectual incompetents.

And from the OP, what is this feeling known as Love, is that metaphysical you think? — 3017amen

This very question shows you don't understand what metaphysics is. Go educate yourself and only then is a conversation possible.