consciousness — 3017amen

Consciouseness does seem to be a naturally occurring phenomenon, but that's not what you called it. You called it a "naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon." What about it is metaphysical?"

For example, most atheist's rely on logic to support their belief system. — 3017amen

Who says atheism is a belief system? And if it were, then immune from argument, as I hold all belief systems immune from argument. Argument arises on the move from belief system to fact, which move is nonsensical as fact is prior.

And as such, can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible? — 3017amen

From this I infer you do not know what logic is, Yours is akin to asking if the rules of baseball can hit a home run - a nonsense question.

I consider you one of those fanatical atheists, — 3017amen

Then you consider wrong. If guilty of any fanaticism at all, it would be anti-nonsense fanaticism. As it happens in the year 2020 there's a lot of it around.

and so I'm compelled to ask, how does deduction explains things like : the Will, Love, wonderment, synthetic a priori knowledge, et al. — 3017amen

What makes you think it might? I do not think it does, and not because of any failure, but because it's a nonsense question. Or to you, how does a spatula tighten a 9/16ths bolt? Or, when does the wind Thursday?

Please share your thoughts if you can, using your sense of reasoning. — 3017amen

And why would you think reason is a sense?

For clarity's sake, I at least hold profession of belief an absolute defense. Believe what you like and go in peace. But beliefs do not - cannot - ground substantive argument, for at least the simple reason they have no substance.

You seem to have your own "philosophizing" as about your beliefs. Fine, for your personal entertainment. But to my way of thinking as an approach to any kind of knowledge that's wrong and upside down. You can start with a belief, call it a hypothesis, and subject it to test, a matter of science, which is a kind of thinking. If your science is any good, then you have some knowledge, subject to refinement under further science. — tim wood

Apparently, you think that the "reasonableness of Theism" topic is an intra-natural scientific question. But, I am approaching it as a supra-natural philosophical question. If the existence and nature of G*D was a scientific issue --- like the nature of mysterious Dark Matter --- we would be discussing it on a science-related forum. So, why are you insisting on the Baconian scientific method for a question that has no physical evidence --- except the conditional existence of Nature itself? Why are you disparaging philosophical methods on a philosophical forum?

Are you a practicing scientist? If not, do you have "good" knowledge? Or are you just believing the current majority opinion of scientists-in-general? For the record, I am not a Theist, and I'm still Agnostic about my hypothetical Creative Force. But my personally entertaining thesis is based on the latest science, including the ubiquitous role of Information in all phases of Nature and Culture. Does your fallible scientific method produce "good" knowledge about cultural questions? Or, do psychological & political & religious issues remain primarily in the domain of Metaphysical Philosophy? :joke:

Philosophical Methodology : Plato said that "philosophy begins in wonder", a view which is echoed by Aristotle: "It was their wonder, astonishment, that first led men to philosophize and still leads them." Philosophizing may begin with some simple doubts about accepted beliefs. The initial impulse to philosophize may arise from suspicion, for example, that we do not fully understand, and have not fully justified, even our most basic beliefs about the world.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophical_methodology

PS__ I began from "simple doubts" about the beliefs of my religious upbringing. And have boiled-down the "reasonable" evidence for a creator to the otherwise mysterious existence of a world that is not self-existent --- it comes down to BEING. "To be, or not to be", that is the philosophical question relevant to Theism vs Atheism. :cool:

Enformationism :
As a scientific paradigm, the thesis of Enformationism is intended to be an update to the obsolete 19th century paradigm of Materialism. Since the recent advent of Quantum Physics, the materiality of reality has been watered down. Now we know that matter is a form of energy, and that energy is a form of Information.
As a religious philosophy, the creative power of Enformationism is envisioned as a more realistic version of the antiquated religious notions of Spiritualism. Since our world had a beginning, it's hard to deny the concept of creation. So, an infinite deity is proposed to serve as both the energetic Enformer and the malleable Substance of the enformed world.
http://blog-glossary.enformationism.info/page8.html

for a question that has no physical evidence — Gnomon

Then it is speculation. All that can be sought for in speculation is an internal consistency, and whether it contradicts anything in the world. Beyond that, an entertainment - which does not entertain me.

And if you ask why I engage, it is because of expressions like this,

except the conditional existence of Nature itself? — Gnomon

There may well be things in nature that are conditional, but what does it mean or imply to hold that the existence of nature itself is conditional?

about it is metaphysical?" — tim wood

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.

Who says atheism is a belief system? — tim wood

Everyone. Because it's obviously based upon your belief system that posits negation of its truth value. That's why it's called atheism. It's based on theism. Unfortunately, there are many fanatical atheists (such as yourself who frequently drop f-bombs when frustrated with EOG topics) who tend to deny the obvious. It's probably some sort of cognitive dissonance or pathology...not exactly sure.

What makes you think it might? I do not think it does, and not because of any failure, but because it's a nonsense question. Or to you, how does a spatula tighten a 9/16ths bolt? Or, when does the wind Thursday? — tim wood

Not sure I'm following that. I asked how does deductive reasoning explain consciousness?

And why would you think reason is a sense? — tim wood

Reason comes from self-awareness, you know, another metaphysical phenomenon from our stream of consciousness; kind of like the ability to perform cosmologic mathematical calculations relative to causation.

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will. — 3017amen

Are you really unaware that what you write does not make sense? What do you imagine an "exclusively physically objective phenomena is? I ask becasue I have no idea what such a thing could be - and on it's own terms, not possible.

there are many fanatical atheists (such as yourself who frequently drop f-bombs when frustrated with EOG topics) — 3017amen

I have explained to you exactly why I dropped them - do we need to go over that again?

Everyone. Because it's obviously based upon your belief system that posits negation of its truth value. — 3017amen

Eh? English please. And everyone doesn't, specifically, exactly, and particularly atheists, which you have been shown and referred to, though here you neglect that fact. Atheism is a conclusion reached on the basis of a lack of supporting evidence about some of the claims of theism, namely those claims of existence beyond the bounds of belief, which Christians don't make - if they're Christians. For Christians it's "We believe..." all the way down.

This from @god must be atheist covers it:
"Faith does not need evidence. That's why faith is a belief.
If you have sufficient evidence then you are a scientist, and you don't need faith.
But because the Apostles had faith, obviously they lacked sufficient evidence."

It's probably some sort of cognitive dissonance or pathology...not exactly sure. — 3017amen

Don't do this.

kind of like the ability to perform cosmologic mathematical calculations relative to causation. — 3017amen

More salad. What is this? Example, please.

And I have to note you still have not answered the original question of this sequence, although you've so far dodged it. What is an example of a naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon?

What do you imagine an "exclusively physically objective phenomena is? I ask becasue I have no idea what such a thing could be - and on it's own terms, not possible. — tim wood

I realize metaphysics is kind of new to you. Traditional metaphysical problems have included the origin, nature and 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 the will. And of course any and all meaning of life questions. Are those things not possible using your sense of reason/deduction?

If you have sufficient evidence then you are a scientist, and you don't need faith. — tim wood

Not sure what that means...does that mean theoretical physics and cognitive science are unimportant?

What is this? Example, please. — tim wood

Calculating the laws of gravity when they're not required for survival.

What is an example of a naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon? — tim wood

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will.

Oh, sorry, I saw that you dodged this question. This is an important question that relates to the OP:

Can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?

What is an example of a naturally occurring metaphysical phenomenon?
— tim wood

Any and all distinguishable features from self-awareness beyond exclusive, physically objective phenomena. Of course, one of many examples from one's own stream of consciousness would be the metaphysical Will. — 3017amen

According to Popper, metaphysics is essentially our intuition of where science is headed. This can explain things like the epistemological problem of how we can ever come up with new theories without running into an infinite evidential regress....

Then it is speculation. All that can be sought for in speculation is an internal consistency, and whether it contradicts anything in the world — tim wood

My Enformationism thesis is qualified by the admission that it is an informal layman's speculation, intended only to serve as the basis for a personal non-theistic worldview. Which is the perspective from which I comment on this forum. However, I think if you were to actually read the thesis (rather than pre-judging it), you would find few contradictions with proven Science. For example, It accepts the heuristic process of Evolution, specifically denies miraculous intervention, and limits its conjectures to the same pre-Big-Bang realm in which some cosmologists imagine a turtles-all-the-way-down Multiverse. Moreover, the eternal world-creating random Multiverse and the eternal world-creating intentional G*D are both reasonable-yet-unprovable explanations for the existence of our contingent world *1. The difference is that the G*D inference can account for the otherwise mysterious metaphysical aspects (Life & Mind) of our world organism, by attributing the Potential for Meaning & Intention to its First Cause. That's why I call it G*D, rather than simply blindly blundering Nature. :cool:

There may well be things in nature that are conditional, but what does it mean or imply to hold that the existence of nature itself is conditional? — tim wood

Thanks for asking. Before the Big Bang theory became the only reasonable explanation for the evidence that space is expanding and nature is evolving, most scientists and philosophers assumed it had existed forever. Since that's no longer a viable belief, we must deal with the contingent (not of necessity) existence of physical reality, and look elsewhere for a "necessary Being". The commonly accepted condition for our world is the "creation" event --- accurately, but grudgingly, described as a sudden eruption of something from nothing. Yet, since that sounds too much like a miracle, alternative but equally conditional, scenarios have been conjectured. None are actually plausible unless laws of Being and Becoming were already in place. And that is the role of my hypothetical "natural" force of BEING. :nerd:

Necessary Being : It is commonly accepted that there are two sorts of existent entities: those that exist but could have failed to exist, and those that could not have failed to exist. Entities of the first sort are contingent beings; entities of the second sort are necessary beings.
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/god-necessary-being/

Metaphysical Necessity : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysical_necessity

*1 Purely random processes would take 12 forevers to create a single strand of DNA. But randomness plus intentional Selection could do the job in only one forever. :joke:

Does this make sense, or is there some relevant literature to this question that you all might recommend? — DPKING

The evidence and reasons of believing or disbelieving in a mysterious deity, responsible for the existence of our world, have been bated & debated for eons. And not much common ground has been uncovered. So one author decided to eliminate the ambiguity of human language in order to determine the mathematical probability of what he defines as "God". Using Bayesian statistical methods, he methodically computes a number to represent how certain he can be that his God exists. The book is clearly & humorously written, not too cluttered with equations, and appropriately skeptical of such touchy topics as miracles. Unfortunately, I doubt that many convinced Atheists will be impressed by his mathematical evidence for wizard behind the curtain. :smile:


The Probability of God : A Simple Calculation That Proves The Ultimate Truth
____Stephen Unwin, Phd

And as such, can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible?
— 3017amen
From this I infer you do not know what logic is, Yours is akin to asking if the rules of baseball can hit a home run - a nonsense question. — tim wood

Can deductive logic explain consciousness? Is that logically possible? — 3017amen

You see, I did answer it. Perhaps this you might understand: logic does not explain anything. Your answer is no.

Now answer my question, now asked for the fourth time.

Perhaps this you might understand: logic does not explain anything. Your answer is no. — tim wood

OIC. Frankly I'm confused. How do you support your belief system then? What kind of logic do you use?

You asked a question consciousness and logic. Now you're asking about belief systems. Answer: fuzzy logic. Rhetorical logic: the logic of the greater and the lesser. Aristotelian categorical, and, mathematical when the occasion permits.

But none of that is as persuasive as deductive reasoning, no?

If you intend to answer my question, do it now. I won't ask again.

Timmy!

Just want to make sure I am understanding you and interpreting your statements thus far::

1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?

2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?

You said:
"...logic does not explain anything."

Tim, how could this be?

You said:
"...logic does not explain anything."
Tim, how could this be? — 3017amen

If you think logic explains anything, please indicate how - an example works.

If you think logic explains anything, please indicate how - an example works. — tim wood

I'm not following that. I thought logic was used to support your belief system (Atheism)?

Othwerwise, per the OP, I believe you still need to provide justification for numerous things, like:

1. You must be saying that you don't rely on deductive reasoning for your belief system (Atheism). And if that's correct, how do you arrive at your conclusions of no-God?

2. You must be saying that, the complete explanation of consciousness (conscious existence) can't be understood (whether it's logically possible) through deductive reasoning, is that correct?

Based on your answer of "no", does it follow that It is now starting to sound as if all of life is a big mystery? I mean, if you can't use logic to explain conscious existence, nor your belief in A-theism (which is based on Theism) how does the Athiest square the circle?

Or maybe you don't really represent the Athiest mindset all that well, not sure there, only you would know that. Must be some kind of Subjective truth.

You know, 3017, that while you claim to be a Christian ethicist, you're nothing of the sort, and no kind of christian at all. On this site you consistently avoid substantive discussion by refusing to answer most questions, answering with nonsense when you do, and lying. And these become what you are - and God alone knows what else is wrong with you Yours is a pathology - I'm sorry you're a sufferer. But you are toxic - I suspect you will take some pride in that, although you shouldn't. I and others have attempted to engage with you, but finally one realizes you're not able. I suspect that from time to time I will warn newbies. If you need any clarity on matters I've posted to you, you have merely to read the posts. Beyond that, I've nothing for you that you might want.

It's okay Tim. You don't seem to be that resolute in your belief system anyway, and I certainly can understand that.

My questions are basic existential questions, which seem to pose some challenges for you. I would say continue searching and asking questions. I know it's a struggle sometimes and that it brings about frustration. Maybe just try not to be so afraid of yourself.

Be well.

Hi Batsushi,

I think we can both agree that chronic pain sucks and that this argument from back pain is somewhat a personal repackaging of the problem of evil as “the problem of suffering”
I do not know whether the back pain you face is self-inflicted or the result of a disease, disorder, but for the argument’s sake I’ll say that you suffer from this pain as an innocent victim, and you very well might.
As you put it,

P1) If God is omni-loving, omniscient (you said “omnipotent” but that is the same as omni-powerful, so I changed it a bit), omni-powerful being, then he would:
a) Not want you to have back pain,
b) Have the knowledge of how to stop your back pain
c) Have the ability to stop your back pain
And your back pain would not exist.
P2) Your back pain exists
C) God is not omni-loving, omniscient, or omnipotent

I certainly trust you in your making of P2, so it seems like P1 is what I have to deal with. The typical response to the evidential argument for the problem of evil is theodicies. These defenses would challenge the first premise, not by denying any of the omni-abilities of God, but by asserting that God wants something more than not wanting you to have back pain. Some theists appeal to a greater good scenario where we suffer so that greater goods (physical and spiritual) may come about. Imagine that your back pain is studied by scientists and they discover a cure for all back pain everywhere, but only because you had to suffer first. Or a scenario where your back, working the way it does, prevents you from being paralyzed from the waist down. However, this kind of body requires the nociceptors present to function (a good thing) and they can go on the fritz (a bad thing) and cause severe back pain when affected by disease/disorder. These would be much greater goods than their alternatives, right?
But the kind of suffering we see in the world, and you see in your back pain, doesn’t seem to match up with this kind of greater good, especially when we don’t see them in our lifetime, so we are back to square one.
So, some theists try to just propose an answer to the logical problem of evil, by asserting that the free will God desire’s his creatures to have permits evil/suffering in the world. This breaks down the contradiction present in the problem of evil, but it doesn’t seem super satisfying does it?

As a Christian theist, I find that the only answer I have to this dissatisfaction we feel that maintains these attributes of God is what I call a cruciform response to the problem of Evil. Essentially, God would be unknowable (and potentially not omni-benevolent) if he possesses all of these attributes and evil still exists, unless, he too suffers. However, this is not the place for discussions of theological matters, but philosophical ones. So I’ll stop there.

Regarding the multitude of arguments for theism and atheism, is it reasonable for both sides to hold the positions they hold? — DPKING

These beliefs are understandable, but not technically reasonable.

1) The vast majority of arguments both for and against theism assume, typically without any questioning at all, that a God exists or doesn't exist, either/or, one or the other.

2) The vast majority of reality at every scale, space, can not be clearly said to either exist or not exist, as this phenomena has properties which fit our definitions of both existence AND non-existence.

3) Thus it's not reasonable to assume without questioning that a God could only exist or not exist.

And...

It's not reasonable for me to type this a hundred more times on the forum as the evidence strongly suggests that doing so will have no effect on anything. But I probably will anyway, as I too am not reasonable.

1) The vast majority of arguments both for and against theism assume, typically without any questioning at all, that a God exists or doesn't exist, either/or, one or the other.

2) The vast majority of reality at every scale, space, can not be clearly said to either exist or not exist, as this phenomena has properties which fit our definitions of both existence AND non-existence.

3) Thus it's not reasonable to assume without questioning that a God could only exist or not exist. — Hippyhead

And as has also been pointed out to many times, that entire argument was independent of what God is. So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist.

So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist. — Kenosha Kid

The inconvenient fact you seem to be avoiding is that the vast majority of reality can not be said to either exist or not exist, one or the other. So, should you be an atheist who bases your philosophy on observation of reality, you might consider observing that.

The inconvenient fact you seem to be avoiding is that the vast majority of reality can not be said to either exist or not exist, one or the other. So, should you be an atheist who bases your philosophy on observation of reality, you might consider observing that. — Hippyhead

Once again, that is independent of what God is.

So really the most it says is that something either does or doesn't exist. — Kenosha Kid

Why should we assume that anything can only exist or not exist when most of reality (space) does not follow that rule?

The discussion of the evidence for the existence of "some" God can go on indefinitely, and we will always be talking about a mere generic concept, not about God itself. However, proof of this God can be obtained by the scientific study of his action in the world, especially by the critical history of miracles and prophecies. That is why I say that the proof of the existence of the true God is a scientific-experimental problem, not a problem of mere logic.

However, the logical reasoning of the “first cause” serves as an excellent auxiliary force for evangelization. First you argue that God exists, then you prove which God is the true one. However, this only works for people who are very sensitive to the logical demonstration cogency.

To the mere metaphysical proof, the scientific-experimental argument must be added. But practically everything in this field has yet to be done.

Why should we assume that anything can only exist or not exist when most of reality (space) does not follow that rule? — Hippyhead

Your argument, presumably by design, says absolutely nothing about anything. From your argument alone, we can deduce nothing. So the answer to your question is to consider different arguments.

Your argument, presumably by design, says absolutely nothing about anything. — Kenosha Kid

Ha, I wish my arguments said absolutely nothing about anything. Then, being nothing, my arguments would be aligned with the vast majority of reality.

If antitheism, then atheism;
antitheism, therefore atheism.

Antitheism: theism (Type) is not true (i.e. empty).
Atheism: therefore, theistic deities (Tokens of theism-Type) are fictions.

Much more 'reasonable' than religious theism (i.e. belief in / worship of a theistic deity or deities).