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.

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? — substantivalism

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?

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. — substantivalism

Did you not comprehend the video?

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.

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

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

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)?

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

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).

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.

Can you actually tell me you watched the video I sent describing correctly evolution? — substantivalism

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?

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

Language? You mean phenomenology and metaphysics.

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)? — substantivalism

You mean it's that which transcends physics?

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. — substantivalism

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?

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?

I prefer the theory of an ancient simulation.

Our words are written left to right when good languages must be completely justified.

There is God, and there 'is not God', and these don't mean what you think they mean (because they are written in our language, we're prone to errors in understanding "simple math") - they are male and female opposites.

"God" and "not God" resulted in the big bang; the word "God" is stupid.

There is possibly a way to define "God" and "not God", but it's nothing like Christianity and is scientific.

The big bang got big and banged somehow...

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. — substantivalism

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?

Are you knew to the english language? — substantivalism

nulla sed tibi videor esse, cum tua spelling

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? — substantivalism

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

There is possibly a way to define "God" and "not God", but it's nothing like Christianity and is scientific. — opt-ae

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?

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.

I'm saying a male and a female, and male and female connecting parts (I've not defined quality) are the only reasonable God-excuse.

A male God, as I have said before, means that universe creation, must have come from his mind and hands when nothing with reproductive capability has, ever, come from our mind and hands. He, as 'not God', must have met a female, as God, and had reproductive sex. Imagine an ancient civilization, who's parts were 'the necessary parts' to form all those elements for the big bang; the ancient civilization had within it the male parts, and the female is what was hunted for. They had sex, boom!

What your stance lacks in strength is due to the missing female and the all-male equation; it even rubs off in your own mind with boring God logic.

You would contend against pseudo-Atheists who are half foolish easily with even a Theist stance...

You wouldn't contend against me with your logic if you continued to talk of an all-male God. Would you? If I said what I said to the others, what would our debate entail?

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 — substantivalism

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.

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. — substantivalism

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.

What your stance lacks in strength is due to the missing female and the all-male equation; it even rubs off in your own mind with boring God logic. — opt-ae

Interesting. Are you suggesting that God has a gender?

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.

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. — substantivalism

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.

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. — substantivalism

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

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.

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? — substantivalism

I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance.

I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance. — Frank Apisa

Are you being jokey/sarcastic, pedantic, or really wondering about the grammatical/language/philosophy that goes into a proper definition? Though, if you have been following the frustrating conversation this person seems to want to not either give up understandable definition of what he means by god or propose a definition which we have words that specifically already describe said concept; consciousness, emotions, wonder, existence, reality, universe, etc. You can call these things god but that doesn't change the concepts its being substituted name wise for.

F-it. I'm done, this is giving me anxiety with your constant convolution of the discussion or constant re-adjusting of positions/lines of argumentation. I'm going to take the advice I should have from the other few posters I directly asked about this discussion or you and just stop.

I'm not a Theist, I'm an Atheist; to no permanency, my stance is definitely disposable, anti-God briefing...

At the moment a majority Theists argue for a male God; saying the creator was Father without Mother. I, on the other hand, claim that a Father and Mother were involved.

This is not God-ism, I can be an Atheist and have this view; there are plenty Mothers and Fathers around. in fact, I don't know one child, whether conscious or not, who didn't come from opposites.

substantivalism
75
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."

How do YOU define...define?

It is difficult to define something if your impressions of what define means differs from mine, for instance.
— Frank Apisa

Are you being jokey/sarcastic, pedantic, or really wondering about the grammatical/language/philosophy that goes into a proper definition? Though, if you have been following the frustrating conversation this person seems to want to not either give up understandable definition of what he means by god or propose a definition which we have words that specifically already describe said concept; consciousness, emotions, wonder, existence, reality, universe, etc. You can call these things god but that doesn't change the concepts its being substituted name wise for. — substantivalism

I am not being a wise-ass...nor am I joking.

I am genuinely interested in the position you are taking (I suspect I oppose it), but just as you have concerns with what a person means when using the word "god" in one of these discussions, I have concerns about what a person means when using the word "define" in a comment like "define god."

Many people might suggest using the "definition" given in a dictionary, but dictionaries truly do not "define" words (my sense of "define") but rather tell us how the word is most often used.

So...really, what do YOU mean by "define"...and when I find that out, I will give you my "definition" of what I mean when I use the word "god"...and we can discuss your position.

I'm interested in what you mean by "define." — Frank Apisa

I suppose, defining x could be predicating x that x is (uniquely) identifiable?
Otherwise, the only option may be to show x (which would be existential proof at least).
In the case here, x is used in so many ways as to become contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever.

jorndoe
972
I'm interested in what you mean by "define."
— Frank Apisa

I suppose, defining x could be predicating x that x is (uniquely) identifiable?
Otherwise, the only option may be to show x (which would be existential proof at least).
In the case here, x is used in so many ways as to become contradictory, unidentifiable, unshowable or just anything/whatever. — jorndoe

Is this comment directed to the word "define" or to the word "god?" It started as though to the former...but ended as though to the latter