Yeah, it fails but, first and foremost, because it is, at most, merely valid and not sound, o
— 180 Proof

Relative to your belief system, please share what would make it sound (if you can) ?
1hOptions — 3017amen

TMF, I realize that it's your OP (and a good one), if 180 can't answer that question, I think it may mean that his particular belief system is in question.

I'm not sure he really understands the concept behind the ontological argument. But be patient, we'll see how he responds (if he does at all). And so at this point, I wouldn't take too much stock in his analysis (considering he generally struggles with his 'premises' from other threads).

Anyway, in layman's terms, unfortunately he's all bark and no bite. Just wanted to point that out; didn't want you to be misled... .

Yeah, it fails but, first and foremost, because it is, at most, merely valid and not sound, o — 180 Proof

Relative to your belief system, please share what would make it sound (if you can) ?

:up: :100:

LOL, tell Banno, there is a there there :razz:

All I'm willing to say is, it's rather odd that the mind has set up a criteria for telling the difference between physical and nonphysical, has applied it with great success I might add but...the catch is...it doesn't seem to be able to determine whether it itself is physical or not!

That's like a person who can tell the difference between a man and a woman but failing to identify his own sex! Perhaps, just perhaps, as you suggested, this person is both! — TheMadFool

Okay, I think I got it. Kind of reminiscent of certain metaphysical questions concerning the nature of our reality. Meaning, we got here, and we are aware of our self-awareness, but we don't know how we got here in the first place (the meaning of an evolved molecular primordial soup) nor how self-awareness itself evolved or developed over time. It's as if self-awareness just arrived on the scene somehow. Biologically, it seems that short of instinct, evolution and emergence, self-awareness just is.

Similarly, with respect to abstractness in nature and how the mind perceives those things, as physicist Paul Davies writes " For reasons of biological selection we can scarcely guess, our brains have evolved to recognize and focus on those aspects of nature that display mathematical patterns."
So when you say our minds have 'set up a criteria for telling the difference' I would argue they are also set up for something that is counterintuitive to Darwinism. They are set up to perceive abstract structures in nature. But the irony is we don't need knowledge about the abstract laws of gravity to survive in the jungle. Nor do we need love to survive, or do we?

Anyway, sorry to digress again....

I just discovered, a physical object (mind) uncertain of its own physicality and if the latter is true, a nonphysical object (mind) is in two minds about its nonphysicality. I — TheMadFool

TMF!

Are you saying that self-awareness, in itself, represents a non-physical quality (qualia) that is essential for physical consciousness as we understand it?

How can one kind of thing conflate itself with another kind of thing? Unless...as you suggested, it's both (physical & nonphysical). — TheMadFool

Yes, I don't think we can escape both the need for the physical and non-physical. In considering many truth's that are apperceived through the senses via quality (qualia) and quantity (materialism), a philosophical analogy could be subjectivism and objectivism as being the requirement(s) for any apperception of a thing to take place at all. In other words, typically you need a subject (you) and an object (thing) to make sense out of something you see, feel, experience and so on. And subjects can be non-physical where objects are usually physical. I guess you could say the radio needs sound waves for it to be felt or perceived by a sentient being.

Though this may seem obvious, with respect to conflation, it's worth mentioning that the conscious and subconscious mind continue to operate together in a logically impossible, explanatory way. I think the word that you use (conflate) works for that description of the mind, where the conscious and subconscious are the two minds that act as one mind. Of course, the driving while daydreaming, crashing and dying scenario rears its head there. And so we simply can't logically explain whether it was exclusively the conscious or subconscious mind that was driving the car. They seemingly were both driving. Metaphorically, I think they can only be described as a 'mottled color of red'.

Those are some quick bullet points on conflating things, as they relate to the mind and matter. I think many can agree that there exists abstract structures in the physical world that go beyond what the definitions of physicalism allows for (mathematics itself, the Will, qualia, etc..). But I am sensing you are trying to get at another point, so please provide more input if possible... .

Hahaha! I tried your 180 proof medication, but that only led to more existential angst :razz:

Put in a quarter and try again my friend :joke:

In the paraphrased words of the sages from the Wisdom Books/The Book of Ecclesiastes (since this thread is about Bible philosophy and ironically the existential angst rearing its head) : The vanity of vanities. This too is nothing new under the sun.

I agree, conversely, some Athiest's here are not able to escape their emotional angst, hence:

Ever wonder why Atheists like to troll Religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:

I agree, there was some interesting discussion that just started about Gnosticism. I hope it continues. But the current state of emotion ironically enough, only serves to prove the obvious. And that is, we're all talking about something beyond logic :cool:

Indeed Jack. Some passengers seem to live in an interminable state of emotional unrest :joke:

I was reading through the link on Hesychasm, thank you. Quick question, does that relate to speaking in tongues at all?

However, if we take a realistic and pragmatic look at the facts, one thing becomes immediately apparent, namely, that neither philosophy nor science knows what ultimate reality is, and neither of them seems to be making much progress in the direction of finding a definitive answer. The only system that claims to have some idea is mysticism. — Apollodorus

:up: :100:

I'd rather not go into Gnosticism as I hear I am already on the mods' black list and I'm sure some think that this thread isn't something that should have happened in the first place .... :smile: — Apollodorus

Thank you for that response, as I will be mondering it and will respond accordingly. However, I did want to quickly acknowledge your disappointment in, say, the fanatical nature of some Atheist behavior on this site (I think it's run by several Atheists but am not positive).

Speaking of which, ever wonder why Atheists like to troll Religious threads? The irony seems to be, that which should have no concern or existence, seemingly weighs heavily on one's consciousness :razz:

Thanks P, you're too kind. I'm big on cognitive science. That's why I like philosophers like Maslow who started out in Psychology. They've used practical experience from their couch-sessions to formulate many of their theories. Not that they're perfect, but... .

I am hopefully your thread will enlighten those who unknowingly need to be enlightened in this area. :cool:

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true? — 3017amen
It's not my position but I'm merely towing the official lines as it were. By the way, we're talking about the mind only and it can't be both physical and nonphysical, right? That would be a contradiction! — TheMadFool

Hahaha! How'd you guess :joke:

Yes of course TMF, towing the official lines is good as a starting point, but we're continental/post modernist's :yikes:

Maybe that's yet another Kantian thing that's beyond pure reason! Or perhaps we should throw SK and Existentialism in there too!

Freud addressed the deepest philosophical question. What motivates and drives humans and why? — Protagoras

Freud has always gained my respect as a psychologist who, as wacky as it may seem to some, brought to light the many interesting, strange, and dysfunctional elements of human sexuality. And as we know, there are many.

Just generally, if you were to explore some reasons why people get divorced or have arguments (I think the divorce rate is around 50%) you often come away with various romantic-love deficiencies or false paradigm's in one form or another from one's (dysfunctional) aspect of childhood environment/experiences. For example, in practical terms, you have men who are women-haters; women who are man-haters. And that often manifests through perceptions and behaviors associated with sexuality.

In a funny or practical way, here's another lighthearted take on the difficulties men/women have with being friends v. lovers (we get all twisted up over these things):

Jung’s criticism of Freud’s theory of the unconscious, and of the excessive importance he gives to sexuality as a key determinant of behavior, etc., seem to be justified. — Apollodorus

I like Jung. What was his critique?

This is why all philosophical systems, both in the West and the East, have turned to mystical experience when philosophizing about ultimate reality couldn't take them any further. It was one of the reasons why Greek philosophers embraced Christianity. Where reason no longer helps, faith and devotion might just push you that bit further and help you achieve your philosophical goal which is not to know truth intellectually, but to actually experience it. — Apollodorus

(Thanks A, for the other parts of your post) and considering the foregoing quote, what are your thoughts about how the Gnostics were influential in Spiritualism and/or Mysticism? I hate to keep dropping his name, but Davies' posits that thought in the last chapter of his book The Mind of God.… . Meaning, he advances a theory that suggests having revelations in science have something to do with the mystical experience.

Of course, we can analogize to musical genius, and even Einstein's revelations about things that were completely novel at that time...

Either physicalism is true or nonphysicalism is true! — TheMadFool

TMF! Nice post.

Why can't both be true?

Never any substance from you, 3017. You're just noise. — tim wood

(In logic) is that an ad hominem fallacy?
:razz:

Fuck you again, 3017. — tim wood

Hahaha. Have you thought about opening an angry atheist thread :joke:

all comes back to God as an idea — tim wood

Is that like the Ontological argument ?
:razz:

Imagine practicing religion or philosophy according to one set of political guidelines for four years, and according to another set for the next four years, and so on. Totally ludicrous IMHO :grin: — Apollodorus

I believe in certain countries like Syria, their politics and religion are not separated. Likewise imagine a Catholic becoming president and how Protestants, Calvinists, Lutheran's, Baptists, ad nauseam might react (?). I've always said man-made religion give God a bad name; in Christianity I wonder if Jesus supported Catholicism :razz:

But back to philosophy, currently the Greeks use the term metaphysics which originally meant, that which comes after physics. Correct me if I'm wrong but I think that was Aristotle's definition.

Apparently metaphysics means the study of topics about physics as opposed to the scientific subject itself, and/or the nature of reality. To quote Paul Davies:

"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 free will. Clearly science is deeply involved in such issues but empirical science alone may not be able to answer them or any meaning of life questions."

Is there a better way to bridge the empirical sciences gap? Some would say cognitive science is but one means & method in trying to discover and uncover some sense of one's own reality. Otherwise philosophically, asking metaphysical questions about things-in-themselves is always an intriguing exercise (Time and Eternity, the Will, etc.).

:grin:

Religion and philosophy should inform politics, not the other way round. — Apollodorus

Well said. Religious philosophy obviously not only influenced Greek philosophy... , and the American currency :cool:

Here's an interesting thought, I wonder if atheists should lobby to get In God We Trust removed from our currency(?). I would love to hear the arguments, especially in light of the foregoing influences :razz:

Kind of reminds me of Ronald Reagan Jr. (atheist) whining about politics.... :snicker:

Way too much "playing tennis without a net" going on for this thread to remotely be a philosophical, let alone historical, discussion. — 180 Proof

Is that another Einsteinian emotional response, or are you a player without a racket? Surely you're not throwing in the towel again in yet another match :razz:

You may want to start an angry atheist thread and see who wins :joke:

Cognitive science has much to say about the why's of existence. Similarly, those that were psychologists who then turned philosopher, they too have much to say (James, Maslow, etc. etc.) from their work experiences. I would stress that it's all good, in that it is incumbent upon us to do all the necessary research even if it comes from unexpected sources.

Of course, to inquire, is one goal of philosophy.

and in the psychological experience of Jung. I — Jack Cummins

:up: :100:

I'm a Jungian fan for sure!

but I hope that philosophy can enter into this, rather than dismiss it. — Jack Cummins

It does. Hence over 75% of P-domain's posit a concept of God. Conversely, if they posited "Whatever", then we would parse the concept of whatever. Either way, philosophy has much to say about these concepts. Who ( or what) invented philosophy and the need to philosophize, I wonder(?).

:grin:

These are claims as matters of fact. As such it's fair to ask for evidence. — tim wood

George Washington existed in the history books, and there was a gravesite in Virginia. Jesus existed in a history book(s) and there was a corresponding gravesite... (?).

The believability of history books is independent of any one history book. — Fooloso4

Thanks. Are you trying to say that a collection of history books that seem consistent with one another is more believable than just one history book?

Why do you suppose that is... ? — 3017amen
I think it has something to do with the idea that since we do things to maintain or change our environment there is some human like being or beings that do the same on a lager scale; and that when they are angered and cause evil they can be appeased by offerings, or become well disposed to us by offerings, or swayed by us by our pleas.

Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.) — 3017amen
They are included because of the belief that there is a connection rather than complete break between the Hebrew Bible (OT) and the NT. After all, that is where all the Laws that Jesus talked about could be found. — Fooloso4

No exceptions taken. I think it further supports, temporal-ness, finitude, and other kinds of human existential angst. Similarly, I always liked the metaphor about our inability to know everything and be perfectly perfect (in paraphrase): my mind wills one thing; my flesh another.

To that end, perhaps an intriguing philosophical question(s) there: how does that paradox of the Will exist and what is the will's purpose. Does the will have Darwinian survival advantages when instinct is all you need to survive in the jungle.

They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed. — 3017amen
The historical record does not stand or fall on the basis of whether these stories are believed to be a true and accurate account of what happened. — Fooloso4

Can you elaborate a little on that please?

So, we are back to the central problem of objective vs subjective truth, as well as personal preferences. — Jack Cummins

Like many, many, things in this world, apperception consists of both the subject and object. The concept of a God is no different. The concept of God is both an objective and subjective truth:

1. Ontological argument= Objective truth
2. The William James religious experience= Subjective truth

If you said that bartricks was not worth listening to on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, you would not committing an ad hominem fallacy - on the contrary, you would be very reasonable. You would be committing the fallacy if you said that batricks' argument was refuted on account of him being an obnoxious dimwit, but who ever does that? — SophistiCat

Of course, you're joking right? Many folk use them interchangeably to where it really doesn't matter. Especially considering the informal nature of most philosophy sites.

In a cognitive science way, folk seem to believe most ad hominem somehow empowers their Being, and gives them a kind of strange ego boost, hence:

“The temptation to belittle others is the trap of a budding intellect, because it gives you the illusion of power and superiority your mind craves. Resist it. It will make you intellectually lazy as you seek "easy marks" to fuel that illusion, [and] a terrible human being to be around, and ultimately, miserable. There is no shame in realizing you have fallen for this trap, only shame in continuing along that path."
— Philosophim

I agree that not all of Biblical accounts are about revelation, and there is indeed a curious mixture. I also think that the idea of God being part human and part man is an interesting aspect of The Bible. In this way, the idea of God in The Bible is so different from ideas in other religions and sacred texts, in the specific idea of God being incarnated as an actual living human being, in Jesus. — Jack Cummins

It's been argued that that is one of the appealing things of Christianity v. other 'religions'. I personally embrace other religious philosophy like Taoism, but they don't have quite the 'human condition appeal' and the relatable angst... .

Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. — 3017amen
The existence of evil and the existence of Evil as an entity are two different things. As it is used in the Hebrew Bible it means bad, adversity, affliction, calamity, and so on. — Fooloso4

:100: :up:

Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. — 3017amen
There is no more need to invoke or posit God than there is to posit the gods. — Fooloso4

Why do you suppose that is... ?

not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... . — 3017amen
The wisdom books were written long before Christianity. There is in them some influence from or common to Greek thought, but there is also resistance. When Proverbs says that wisdom is fear of the Lord it means something quite different from the Greek notion that depends on reasoned thought and argument. — Fooloso4

Sure, but it was included in the Bible for some reason... . (Example, Ecclesiastes was the historical antecedent to Salvation.)

The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure. — 3017amen
The existence of Jesus the man is something very different from the claims of his divinity. There was no need to prove that Jesus the man existed, it was not doubted, but in any case stories about him prove nothing. — Fooloso4

They prove he existed. Otherwise, history books should not be believed.

A critical difference is that philosophy relies on reason, the biblical religions on revelation. — Fooloso4

F4,

While it is accurate to say philosophy itself lives in reason, not all biblical accounts live in Revelation. The OT/Wisdom Books are much about reason, pragmatism, and Greek/Christian philosophy... .

The Bible does not prove the belief in God or defend it, it presumes it. — neoshaman2012

The Christian Bible proves Jesus existed just as any other historical figure.

Of course, Jesus was known to be part God and had a consciousness like humans. Christian philosophy becomes relatable to the human condition in many ways. Most of which of course is illogical and/or transcends logic itself. It's certainly a consistent paradox, using reason, that we find the descriptions and explanations of the physical world beyond reasonable explanations.

Think of it this way, if it wasn't, there would be little need to invoke or posit God to begin with. The irony is that over 75% of philosophical domains in philosophy posit same. Similar to why someone posits the concept of evil. If nothing else, it's a criteria or axiom. Unity of opposites, etc..

Well said... .

Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but anything in the 500BC to 200AD range works well with early Greek philosophy/Christian philosophy (Platonism and Aristotelian moderation, Zeno Stoicism, etc.), as the OT/Wisdom Books I think were written by similar Sages from that era... (?). In any event, I think (it's safe to say that) there were cross influences.

You are out of your mind. — tim wood

Does that mean a something that transcends logic and consciousness :razz:

Great, please share any Christian philosophy there... . I would also recommend delving into those old testament wisdom books (Sirach, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, etc. they are easy reads) as there is a so-called treasure trove of information that mirrors Greek philosophy & Existentialism.

read the Gospels and The Book of Revelation several time, but, somehow, skipped the writings of Paul, and that was before my friend got in a terrible state about Paul's writings. — Jack Cummins

Hey Jack, do you read the old testament wisdom books much? (It's good Christian philosophy.)

You blew off a debate. — tim wood

I believe 180 threw in the towel. It's a shame, I expected more from him... .

Or more simply, what's your point? — tim wood

In Jack's OP, it would be sweet Jesus peace :razz: