Well, I would've liked a comparative analysis vis-à-vis violence.

Your post on the logos directed this thread down an interesting path, with time playing a significant role. I only wished to bring that to your attention. It seems arche is very similar to God.

Qu'est-ce qui ne va pas, c'est facile à voir? — ucarr

:up: That's a good point mon ami! Not always though and hence your thread, oui?

how is it moot, the guy tried to prove solipsism — Darkneos

It's moot because ex mea (humble) sententia, it conflates epistemology with metaphysics (ontology).

If so, then why assume ॐ implies anything at all? — 180 Proof

Good question. It's the only thing we got?!

Précisément! Hence, the OP's claim that the philosopher will not find God.

I don't think that heavily white or East Asian countries would be very homicidal even with very relaxed gun laws. Those demographics, on average, just aren't very homicidal to begin with.

Does northern New England have very strict gun laws? Because AFAIK it's not that homicidal. But what works in its favor is that it's much whiter than the rest of the US is. — Xanatos

We could go back to ancient times when swords, daggers, hammers, axes, falxes, etc. were used. Which countries had thr highest violence rates? All, presumably.

@180 Proof @Gnomon @universeness

The notion of emergent phenomena is closely related to holism. Am I correct?

I would like to hear the explanation of how a strawberry emerges from atoms. — Andrew4Handel

Me too! This mystery must be solved pronto!

Il est facile de voir que ... something's terribly wrong, oui? :snicker:

I sympathize with yer overall weltanschauung mon ami! The ends justify the means! :snicker: :snicker:

Captain Leland Stottelmeyer:

No, divine hiddenness as described by such as the Stanford encyclopedia of Philosophy. — universeness

I intelligo ... these are confusing times.

Yeah, but is theism – its sine qua non claims – true or not true? — 180 Proof

The OP did say "unprovable and unverifiable". Speaking for myself, I'm with you up until si comprhendis non est deus, then you're on your own mon ami.

Well, "what's implied by ॐ"? — 180 Proof

Il est facile de voir que ... we're not in a position to answer that question. As Paine so eloquently put it, some things ... we'll never know.

You rang? — schopenhauer1

:lol: Only to inform you how right you are! I hope you weren't in the middle of something important. I'd hate to be a nuisance monsieur! Au revoir fellow traveller! Our non-grandchildren will not sing of our brave exploits! :lol:

Set the cat among the pigeons ...

I've seen this happen before, but later discovered the OP had been banished. The member in question was probably a real philosopher, but ill-mannered and hence his TPF career ended before it even started.

The si-comprehendis-non-est-deus theistic argument, despite its appeal, is still vulnerable for while it indeed restores the possibility of God it still doesn't prove the existence of God.

Perhaps that element played a part in those early churches; We will never know.

But it does not reflect the expectation that the world was going to change because of their arrival upon the scene. Being a Christian is a job — Paine

I see. Is it disappointment I detect or is it elation? Perhaps that's irrelevant to a non-Christian or, contrariwise, even more so to one.

What's important though, in me humble opinion, is what's implied by ॐ. Agree/disagree/don't give a damn?

Please don't give @schopenhauer1 more ammo to promote antinatalism. :smile:

In the beginning was the word — John

ॐ

Very Hindu of John.

:up:

Could you expand on that? — PhilosophyRunner

Everything is an end unto itself, but one end could be a means to another end.

I skimmed through the quora answer; didn't find anything noteworthy.

Solpisism is epistemological and not ontological in nature. It's about what we can know about reality rather than what reality is. Your question is moot.

ChatGPT is

Bullshit machines — Banno

They are in the end just stringing words together based on statistical patterns. — Banno

GIGO?!

AI is not about repeating what it has downloaded even if that is masterfully masked by paraphrasing and word substitution. Real AI should provide us with solutions to problems like global warming, poverty, diseases, etc.

divinely hidden — universeness

IPU? :chin:

Well the Video I linked to aruges how you can't even know if you're thikning or if there is a you.

SO while it appears to be skepticism it's really just fantasy it's doing. — Darkneos

:up: I'll watch the video later. Danke.

Not making and checking unfounded (which is already a red flag as what is considered unfounded is debatable) assumptions while in the process using unfounded assumptions.

They don’t even know if they’re thinking or if they exist, both of which are unfounded: — Darkneos

:chin: and :smile: Précisément.

Somewhere along our journey, is (fact) and ought (hope) got mixed up.

Fair enough Mr Smith, an honest response. — universeness

Muchas gracias. :up:

Exactly. — PhilosophyRunner

Perhaps we need to look at the issue from a relational point of view.

Indeed, it's possible that the reasons for my belief in god may be more psychological than evidential, but I'm a reluctant believer.

I believe you have it backwards. Skepticism is about not making & checking (unfounded) assumptions.

No problemo! It's interesting how chronos is the X factor.

All philosophy is about it. — introbert

Makes a mental note of that. :up:

That doesn’t even follow…

Like I said, pro solipsism arguments are nonsense. — Darkneos

Not so mon ami. Solipsism is skepticism's piéce de résistance, but skeptics can do a lot better if you catch me drift.

Design is an empirical-type of knowledge and is therefore flawed in the same way as any scientific-type knowledge.

Pascal's wager is a protrepsis cum paranaesis tool. It works for proselytizing as well as to prevent apostasy. If you don't believe (in Christianity), you go to hell.

Pascal's wager is an analysis of a carrot-stick deal. If you don't believe, hell and if you do, heaven. If you don't believe in hell/heaven and the rest of the Christian doctrine, you should is Pascal's point mon ami.

Richard Dawkins made a mistake and it's in mistakes we see where our loyalties are, so to speak.

That was my point. You have to buy into the basic legitimacy of Christianity in order for Pascal to be relevant. If Pascal's point was to get me to be a Christian, his argument will only work if I were already a Christian, so there's no value in his argument to those who don't already believe. — Hanover

So you wouldn't believe in someone who told you to believe him/her if you don't wanna end up in a bad place? :chin:

I'm gonna say that I'm approaching this from a very common standpoint - that there's gotta be an origin.