@3017amen
It's not really my thread type. I'm asking because I couldn't quite understand what you said in that last paragraph.

I'm more a psychology thread type of guy!

TMF!

Thanks for your reply I want to give your thoughtful post the same thoughtful consideration so let me monder it and get back to you!

Okay I'll explain in a bit...btw, I love psychology.... Probably why I'm more of a continental philosopher!!!

@3017amen
Excellent! You should post your views to my thread or start some psychology and continental philosophy threads to get some decent discussions going!

Okay any idea of what I should call the new thread/OP? I'm open to any ideas....

@3017amen
1)The existential psychology/philosophy of religion.
(Like William James varieties of religious experience)

2)Religion and continental philosophy.
(Their connections)

3)Platonism and religion.

Hey TMF!

With the holiday weekend upon us I'm going to try my best to get to your supposition (s), but have to ask quickly for a couple qualifiers if you will:

1. By infinity would you accept the term or concept of eternity as one in the same?
2. The concept of infinities and finites, can they be analogous to (or treated like) temporal time/space time and eternal time as a unity of opposite concept?

Magnificent - except that you ignore fact in favor of unaccountable fantasy.

@tim wood
I'm afraid your facts are fictions. Generated by wish fulfillment.

I'm afraid your facts are fictions. Generated by wish fulfillment. — Protagoras

What facts are you referring to, specifically? All I've done is exhibit two posts by the moderator. And you can review the debate for yourself. 3017 declared it over, and then left, and was then non-responsive in spite of being solicited at least three times for response.

And there's this:
"Hanover
60
Perhaps, Hanover, as moderator, and in consideration of the debate to date, you might advise 3017 that if he does not participate by some time that you specify, you shall be forced to rule him as having withdrawn from the debate, and 180 the winner
— tim wood

180 asked to leave it open a bit longer to see if 3017 has more to say, so with that I'll leave it open a bit longer."

So if you think facts are the product of my wishful thinking, mybe you should rethink it.

Take as much time as needed between posts. — 3017amen

Which is not "no time limit." Further, you had more than ample time and chance to iron out any ambiguity. But it's clear you were not interested. I have to imagine that had you been interested, you would have found a way maintain the debate. You were advised and repeatedly challenged. You didn't show, and the train left the station. And now you're on about events that never happened, and things you would have done, had you the chance. But that's all fantasy and lies.

@tim wood
I don't need your selective quotes. I have followed and read the whole debate.

I also have read numerous posts from all three of you.

Wishful thinking Tim.
You and 180 are habitually debating emotionally and selectively. You can't wish religious feelings and truths away Tim. Nor can you logic them away. Your and 180s failure illustrates this clearly. Instead of just being a critic give us YOUR worldview.

It's easy to pick holes in words Tim,why don't you be constructive instead?

Could you clarify on the last paragraph of your post,platonism and structures/maths? — Protagoras

What I meant by the following:
"To that end, one thing we know is that those same abstract entities and structures (math), seem to comprise much of sentient consciousness itself-metaphysics. (Perhaps one reason why Platonism is alive and well.)"

...is, that that was referring to similar abstract structures that comprises our intellect. For example, we have this logical side and we have this feeling side (the will) that is a dumb and blind 'feeling' or impulse or energy that needs logic to make cognition work the way we understand it to work (and cognize). Refer to my profile I did an OP/thread years ago on Voluntarism.

And within that description of cognition, we are able to perceive abstract entities. Abstract structures or entities include but are not limited to the following: mathematics, music/music theory, aesthetics (the feelings one feels when they perceive colors, objects, etc.-see Kant), the Will itself-Schop., the feeling of Time/time itself, and even Love and other metaphysical concepts and phenomena that are innate to conscious existence and the world of perception and sense experience.

There's much more to parce but does that help any...

@3017amen
It does help...But continue. This is very interesting!

Look dude if you want to debate me one on one, then propose something. Otherwise I'm going to have to put you on my ignore list.

Now continue with your angry tirades if you must :razz:

Thanks!

I got to take care of some personal things at the moment P. Let me get back to you later K?

@3017amen
Of course. No rush. In your own time.

You and 180 are habitually debating emotionally and selectively. You can't wish religious feelings and truths away Tim. Nor can you logic them away. Your and 180s failure illustrates this clearly. Instead of just being a critic give us YOUR worldview. — Protagoras

No one has suggested any such thing (that I know of). And I have repeatedly said that I am not an atheist. 3017 at least conveniently ignores that. My "worldview" on atheism is this. An atheist declines to accept on faith that which requires direct evidence to affirm. Which says zero about belief, but is towards those who would press their beliefs onto others as matter of fact.

I have repeatedly credited belief as belief and as belief pretty much unassailable. When these beliefs presented/imposed as fact, I merely ask for the how of it, the evidence that makes it a fact. 3017 is not alone in having trouble with such questions, but he uniquely ungracious and offensive about it. And between him and me, this is old business.

It's easy to pick holes in words Tim, why don't you be constructive instead? — Protagoras

You've evidently never worked construction, or forgot if you did. To construct, or build, you have to first clear away the trash, and then prepare the ground. Then of course you have to decide if the project is real or fantasy. And of course if fantasy, then you don't have to work at all hard on any aspect of it.

Attempt at a coherent question here. Maybe best to leave it simple. What is an infinite ordinal? — tim wood

Such a great question. Thank you for the inspiration. I didn't want to hijack this thread with my lengthy exposition, so I posted it in the Math section over here ....

Look dude if you want to debate me one on one, — 3017amen

I'll consider it, but I also have to take into account your recent performance, in which you made it crystal clear you have no idea what a debate is or how to conduct yourself in one, either with respect to topic or opponent.

The concept of God is a being in which none greater can be conceived. — 3017amen

Greater in what way? Since you (and Anselm) don't say in what way, should we assume in every way possible? If so, that would include greater in height, greater in ability to eat pies in a pie-eating contest, greater in armpit smelliness, and a whole lot of other greaters.

Since anyone can conceive or comprehend, a priori, that particular definition standard, one can conceive of a God.

Well, yes. My concept of God now is of a very tall dude who can eat more pies than anyone else and has smellier armpits than anyone else. I often wondered what God was like. Thank you for clarifying that for me.

@tim wood
Problem is what standard of evidence do you uphold?

All I see from you is impatience,defensiveness,pedantry and finally ad homineum.

Your analogies and badgering are terrible.

Fact is you can't refute 3017 and thus you resort to emotionality and nonsense.

Apropos of nothing in particular, of course.

How to Deal with a Passive Aggressive Person

Fact is you can't refute 3017 and thus you resort to emotionality and nonsense. — Protagoras

You're not getting it. I make no pretense of being able to refute any of 3017's or yours or anyone else's beliefs. I do question them when represented as fact. If you will allow fact as synonymous with science, then I will say here what I have said elsewhere. Belief, or in this case religion, has its own house wherein it can do what it likes - within broad limits. Science, or facts, has its own house in which what it does is governed by rules.

Many religious believers want their religion to have a place in the house of science - in many cases want to take it over and subject it entirely to religious considerations - but in this they reveal their ignorance as to what facts are, what science is, and that religion cannot be in the house of science because they are just plain incompatible, and religion subject to science would destroy religion.

Do you begin to get it?

@tim wood
There is nothing to get.
You are a narrow minded bigot and pretentious.

You cannot tell the difference between religion and facts/science?

For what it's worth, I think the flaw in Anselm's argument is simply this: it relies on the fact that if we say that God is only imaginary and not real, this leads to a contradiction; but what is not often noticed is that imaginary objects can embody contradictions (e.g. the square that is also not a square is an imaginary object), and so there is nothing to prevent God being both imaginary and self-contradictory.

Please don't. 3017 needs better meds not another chance to humiliate himself even more than s/he usually does posting to public threads. Self-fellating little D-K trolls like 3017amen & Protagoras are only here for onanistic comic-relief at best. We rodeo clowns just corral the bulls*** when we're bored enough and then leave them to others (or the Mods) moving on / returning to new informed, interesting, adult discussions. As far as that pitiful non-debate goes, the most telling thing even after Hanover closed the thread is that 3017 could have answered my last question (which was repeated three times) on any other thread but still has not to this moment. Why? S/he doesn't, I confidently suspect, because s/he can't. Of course, my friend, it's your time to waste if you're bored enough, but I recommend no longer bothering to take the likes of 3017 seriously. Advice from one so-called "angry atheist" to another. :smirk:

It would be so nice if people here would talk about philosophy. Fights between teenage girls I can find down the pub.