Update

The sticking point: How to distinguish nonexistence from nonphysical?

@Bitter Crank

A variation of the popular conservative mantra:
‘science doesn't care about your feelings’.

Or at least, that’s the story a certain era of science tells itself. An era just coming into being knows that valuative frameworks are the very basis of science — Joshs

This just popped into my mind: Consciousness plays a major role in quantum mechanics! We're living at the wrong scale of reality (we'd be better of living quantum lives where our consciousness, perhaps feelings, make a difference).

Where does "God" fit in this? Shouldn't "back on track" refer to the subject, which is "God & Existence"?

Anyway, what conclusion can be drawn after having defined "existence" and "physical"? — Alkis Piskas

Well, God's the spanner in the works being a nonphysical entity that exists. I thought it better to leave him for last; for starters we could sort out what existence and physical mean.

In my own view

1. Physical: Perceivable through the senses/their extensions (instruments).

2. Existence: Perceivable, again, through the senses/their extensions (instruments) + Inferrable from data e.g. the design argument.

Sure, but in this sense rationalization conceals true motives and is thus a form of deception, even if only self-deception. Last I remember, the theologians you speak of have more than a few contradictions in their justifications to contend with. — javra

Yep, on target sir/ma'am!

The OP was right on the money. However, as you pointed out, there's going to be inconsistency issues. Axioms will clash. I'm not proficient enough in logic to predict how and where exactly contradictions will appear. Do you have any ideas?

Methinks the OP is onto something really important. It happened to Christianity. Church Councils were convened in which Christian doctrines were adopted not by argumentation but by vote (argumentum ad populum). The next generation of theologians then went to work on these tenets, reasoning backwards to axioms that would support them. This is just a hypothesis of course; cum grano salis. Modern psychology has a term for this: rationalization!

When I try to type faster, I make more errors.

Moral of the story: Don't hurry people. They'll make (more) mistakes.

Hence, patience is a virtue.

:chin:

To be honest, I don't know! — javi2541997

King Tantalus? The gods, of course, found out!

The psychologist, social scientist, wishing he needed the apparatus of a chemist, dehumanizes the subjects by making objects (it) of them. — Bitter Crank

:fire:

So we're just sacks of chemistry. — Neil deGrasse Tyson

The law of gravity doesn't care whether you're a saint or a sinner or a stone.

Long story short, if you want to understand your fellow humans, study them as fellow humans. — Bitter Crank

Bravo!

You're welcome, friend. I wish you can get some time and read more about Hinduism. I also enjoy reading all types of Asian culture/philosophy. It amazes me. — javi2541997

Are there any similar stories in Western religions?

Much obliged! I wish I had the time & resources to go through all the available material on Hinduism. I suppose I'll just have to take what I get.

Gracias for the Krishnamurti link. I read it and it rings true. Fear is an overarching theme in life; for instance, no one and I mean no one acts until and unless their ass is on the line. True there's the carrot-and-stick policy, but nothing motivates a person more strongly than an existential threat! Terror is a language everyone understands.

Fear Argument for Antintalism

A child will either cause pain (it'll be feared) or will be in pain (it'll fear)

So,

Don't have children


That said, I'm rather disappointed about how Krishnamurti seems to be (over)simplifying the nam-lu-úlu (the condition of being human).

I now see the need for (a) god(s). Given the OP's main idea (distortion in judgment of humans), it's quite obvious we need someone nonhuman to preside over disputes between human and human.

Kinda like Gödel's incompleteness theorems: no system can prove its own consistency and all systems will always be incomplete. We need (a) god(s), by definition superior to us and thus not limited by the flaws in human cognition.

A good idea god(s) is/are but, at the same time, extremely dangerous. We're playing with fire, we're gonna get burned!

I was only exploring the available options. When a hedge reaches a certain threshold, the next thing that happens is it begins to grow to an unmanageable size. It is then that we hire someone to trim it to ensure things don't get out of hand in your lovely garden (of Eden)! Remember how God did the same to A & E? It's the same logic, the same idea, the same mindset.

We could do the same with the ideaverse, oui, Jack? We don't want something so complex that it loses all practical value, si? Remember the novacula Occami and KISS ( :kiss: )?

Why when he was only 2 years old? He admitted to knowing nothing anyway. — Jack Cummins

Excelente!

2 year old Socrates: Didn't know nothing!

70ish year old Socrates: Found out he was only 2 years old!

It takes that long to temet nosce!

Hi Jack Cummins.

I think I did that out of order. You'll forgive me, won't you?

Thank you. I would start with what we know to be true (at least one mind exists), and then see if any further assumptions about reality are warranted. Does positing the existence of mind-independent stuff solve anything? Is physicalism possible to prove? Does it lead to absurdities or contradictions? — RogueAI

Si, señor! I applaud the almost divine simplicty of your approach/method! Of course Descartes beat you to it but we can set that minor point aside for the moment!

So, what do we know?

Most interesting. :chin: — Ms. Marple.

The greatest moron of all is me. I wallow myself in my complete moronship and stupidity, and even my mirror image seems brighter than me. What blissful knowledge! And at least I know myself! — Hillary

I sometimes feel that way too, actually, most of the time! Have you seen Forrest Gump? He ran for his life...made it big!

Your book will be a bestseller! Maybe we can work together for a future Nobel Prize. Fifty-fifty! — Hillary

Gracias for the kind words, señor/señorita. I'm in unfamiliar territory; please forgive my gaffes if any.

Indeed, there are more questions than we can answer, but, speaking for myself, questions are, at the end of the day, are the cardinal sign of avidya (variously translated as ignorance or absence of wisdom).

As Socrates said "I don't know, I don't think I know", ignorance leads to a sometimes burning desire, an unquenchable thirst, for knowledge, but, from what I can gather from here and there, the path is, for better or worse, simply a loop and we return to where we began, back to square one.

The natural, obvious, question is is the game worth the candle? What was the point of a journey if the end is the beginning? Sisyphus was being tortured!

How would we define beauty?

I wuz hoping for a mathematical answer - the cables that route the signals between computers & servers are, to my reckoning, haphazardly laid down i.e. they aren't exactly what one would consider pleasing to the eye.

However, if you focus on the web's structure/architecture you might uncover a hidden order that, to some, would be the Megan Fox of networks.

Let's work with that for the moment!

It means what it says. Not sure where the confusion lies... — Baden

If you don't let us resurrect old threads then you shouldn't be killing new ones, si? If you merge new threads, you don't want (needless) repetition. If you don't want us to revive old threads, you don't mind repetitions. Make up yer mind! On second thought, no, don't do that.

The choices are

1. Zombies (Jesus)

Or

2. Toxic Twins (A series of prophets)

I found what I was looking for. — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

Yourself? Like this time when I was searching for my keys...I wuz desperate...sweating and all...the keys were in my hand all the while.

From pulling so much bullshit out of its ass?... — ZzzoneiroCosm

Enema? Constipation? :chin:

Nec caput nec pedes.

According to Catholic theology the Trinity is "God". Neither of it's components are.
And when you try to diverge and say that "The Father is God" and "The Son is God" then, by the law of identity, "The Father is The Son".
And when you insist that "The Father is not The Son" then you have left rationality and no thinking being will take you serious. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Yeah, that did cross my mind. The Sancta Trinitas is a contradiction in and of itself! Ex falso quodlibet (the principle of explosion): A logic bomb meant to blast through walls ideas seem to erect around themselves, a meme trap, imprisoning our minds! However, it feels a bit excessive, I would've preferred a controlled demolition (selective) instead of a thermonuclear warhead (indiscriminate). I once likened the Holy Trinity to a Zen Koan. The objective: Cause a mind crash! You could compare it to malware (viruses, worms) - malicious payloads but deployed with good intentions!

Yeah, but neither "The Father" nor "The Son" is god. So god didn't create the stone nor did it lift it. — ArmChairPhilosopher

Oh, but I thought they are God! :chin:

Didn't Vatican II ascertain (so let it be written! so let it be done!) that the Holy Ghost has no hands? — ZzzoneiroCosm

You have to pay attention to details. The Holy Ghost is a one-armed cripple! :joke:

Sancta Trinitas, Unus Deus

The Father will create the stone.

The Son will lift it!

There's no contradiction because The Father $\neq$ The Son!

The Holy Ghost is simply an extra hand. You know, just in case!

We are world-beaters. — Cuthbert

:smile: :sad:

Speed is deemed a virtue for the reason that the world, life, seems to be deadline-based. Expressions like "that ship has sailed", "you missed the bus", "the train has left the station", "too late", "to shut the doors after the horses have bolted" are testament to the need for speed.

That said, slow and steady wins the race (Aesop, the hare and the tortoise).

Most interesting. — Ms. Marple

The guy is a computer freak — Hillary

I wish my achievements matched my zeal! :sad:

you're dumber than you think you are — MAYAEL

:up: That hits home alright! I suppose it's got something to do with grandiose delusions!

Not just any idea will do; and intersubjectivity serves to hide what is going on here by dragging it into the mire of subject/object...

Pseudo-intellectual fashion. — Banno

:ok:

But will you actually start to read? — Banno

Ummmm....I'll think about it! :grin:

The term "intersubjective" was first needed when Husserl had to backtrack after his exploration of subjectivity ran into solipsism. He needed empathy in order to bring other people into exist. An approach that seems inordinately, convolutely silly. — Banno

See, in my universe, what Husserl did is what philosophers worth their salt do/should do! Ideas seem to be always, well, pregnant so to speak - new ideas are gestating in them and at the right moment i.e. as and when necessary, they're taken to the maternity ward and delivered into the Ideaverse. In the wild they mature and memetically speaking they must be fit to survive what is essentially an assault from all directions (chakravyu re the Mahabharata).

But I digress (I think).

Physical causality is a logical necessity for life to exist. It's not a sufficient logical necessity though. But without it, life can't evolve in the first place. — Hillary

Yeah, me concurs!

Good one! :fire: :100:
Another one: Tempus fugit! The life is short and time flies so fast. — javi2541997

:smile:

Oldham Athletic footballer Jack Shufflebotham sr. died that day! A most memorable day! Any time tourist would have revealed themselves! — Hillary

The Butterfly, crushed, that Eckels finds (A Sound of Thunder, Ray Bradbury).

I can't seem to parse the rest of your post.

Without causality, no life. Only if causality exists, life can exist. Life exists. So causality is an a priori logical necessity. — Hillary

That's how I'd approach the problem. I don't quite like it though. Something about it is off.

I would suggest not worrying so much about boxing things into a "philosophy" that we just defend or attack. It seems to get in the way of even starting. Good luck. — Antony Nickles

Muchas gracias!

We humans have an apocalyptic mindset if you catch my drift. We're alive but we're obsessed with death! Memento mori but don't forget memento vivere!

My incel heart is full of love — ithinkthereforeidontgiveaf

:clap: :grin: