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. — substantivalism

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.

Both. — substantivalism

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).

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

A modern form of Materialism, correct? And your point?

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

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?

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

Are you sure there was always something? How so?

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? — substantivalism

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:

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. — substantivalism

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.)

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

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

Sure. Consciousness exists, right? And your point?

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? — substantivalism

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?

How is instinct all that's needed for existence? — substantivalism

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

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. — substantivalism

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

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. — substantivalism

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:

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?

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.

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.

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

3017amen is a tarbaby troll. I notice that somewhere above he calls the Bible a history book. Winning against such is not only not well-defined, it's not defined at all. Which may give some insight into religious massacres of the middle ages. The only thing to do with a tarbaby is to turn it loose and resolve not to be drawn into grabbing at it next time or any time.

Yeah, reading through, I'm seeing that this person is holding a position they can't demonstrate to be true and choosing to convolute the conversation. Might be best to just use your time in a more productive manner.

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.

:up: sort of the fundamental flaw common to all these arguments- a conclusion in search of premises, rather than the other way around.

3017amen is a tarbaby troll. I notice that somewhere above he calls the Bible a history book. Winning against such is not only not well-defined, it's not defined at all. Which may give some insight into religious massacres of the middle ages. The only thing to do with a tarbaby is to turn it loose and resolve not to be drawn into grabbing at it next time or any time. — tim wood

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.

Right you are, Ken.

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?

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... . — 3017amen

Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea.
(And, if anything, he personally preferred the label religious nonbeliever or agnostic about himself, possibly aligned with Spinoza, and with a poetic-mystic reverence for a variety of religious texts.)
Hijacking cherry-picked quotes is misrepresenting him for the occasion, moreso if you're dishing out accusations left-and-right here.

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

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.

Einstein's sentiment was roughly that a- and theist fanatics alike weren't his cup of tea. — jorndoe

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?

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.

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?

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. — substantivalism

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.

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:

Why did you quote mine? — substantivalism

Not following you on that one.

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

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

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.

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.

Not following you on that one. — 3017amen

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

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. . .

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. — substantivalism

So consciousness (in part Metaphysics) is not real?

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. — substantivalism

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?

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

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

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. — substantivalism

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.

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.

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

Well, if you want to call a first round knock-out being abusive, well, that's your call :snicker:

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

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.