Philosophy Now Forum

Fairy wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:24 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:05 am

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Mon Jun 09, 2025 7:52 pm
Sounds like a distinction without a difference.

[Commutative, synonymous. You can only find those objects in the matter state of mind.]

So figuring out where in my brain I made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually physically finding the FSM? Okay, I respect your opinion.

The mind being the map of the body, an object in mind. Can invent all sorts of objects, including flying spaghetti monsters.

Thought are things, and things will always exist if they are thought into existence, which they are. No proof is necessary.

Everything is, without doubt or error. It’s the disproof idea you should be more concerned and worried about.

Thoughts about physical and metaphysical entities are both thoughts. Yet the subjects of said thoughts are inherently quite different.

This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.

Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 5:43 pm

Martin Peter Clarke wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 8:08 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 1:05 am
So figuring out where in my brain I made up the Flying Spaghetti Monster is actually physically finding the FSM? Okay, I respect your opinion.

Er, what else? Where else does it exist? Apart from the image spawned in my mind's eye? And associated ideas. No you don't. All metaphysical entities are instantiated in intentional, human and otherwise, brains.

Correct. But you are aware there are those who disagree with us and have the opinion that metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence, right?

Believers, aye. And, er, sorry, metaphysical entities only exist in minds, no? If g/G/ods were real t/T/hey wouldn't be metaphysical would they. If they had physical presence and influence. To believers such actual metaphysical entities are falsely truly transcendent. Or am I being all a tad Aspby here? Seeing ambiguity where none exists. Does 'those who disagree with us... have the opinion that [actual] metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence' reconcile my tension? Hmmm. 'there are those who disagree with us and have the opinion that metaphysical entities, like gods, have physical presence and influence [and are therefore not metaphysical to them]'. I feel I'm absurdly in the wrong here, but you never know. Metaphysical entities cannot have physical presence but certainly have influence. I need to let go of this, but I'm stuck on it.

Some of my best friends, in fact all of them, are believers. We never go there. I value the relationships too much.

[Ooh, and are you aware of how grandiosely presumptuous your question is?]

I trust only one thing. The creator.

The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.

AlonsoAcevesMX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:28 pm This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.

Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?

No. Think about it.

AlonsoAcevesMX wrote: ↑Tue Jun 10, 2025 9:28 pm This reminds me of St. Anselm's argument—the very concept of God necessitates His existence.

Most of us equate existence with divinity; it's difficult to think otherwise. But are we correct?

You're a thought. Do you think a thought is going to occupy 'no thought'.
The 'changeless' can be realised only when the ever-changing thought-flow stops.

Natural versus Revealed Theology using a priori versus a posteriori. Contingent versus Necessary using modal logic. Logical versus physical possibility. Aquinas: Cosmological argument Ways 1 and 2. Descartes's Version: We conceive of the Greatest Conceivable Being. ∴ God exists is true.

puto wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 9:07 am Natural versus Revealed Theology using a priori versus a posteriori. Contingent versus Necessary using modal logic. Logical versus physical possibility. Aquinas: Cosmological argument Ways 1 and 2. Descartes's Version: We conceive of the Greatest Conceivable Being. ∴ God exists is true.

Not even sophomoric is it. Lower 6th.

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 7:05 am I trust only one thing. The creator.

The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.

The creator as interpreted by whom? Yourself, a religion, a text?

What? That was an ad hominem attack. Being, an academic response.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:19 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 7:05 am I trust only one thing. The creator.

The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.

The creator as interpreted by whom? Yourself, a religion, a text?

Direct experience. I cannot refute, deny or experience the absence of direct experience.

This doesn’t necessarily need a label it is felt during absolute silence.

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:53 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:19 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 7:05 am I trust only one thing. The creator.

The one animator emerging as this conscious self aware life form I call my life.

The creator as interpreted by whom? Yourself, a religion, a text?

Direct experience. I cannot refute, deny or experience the absence of direct experience.

This doesn’t necessarily need a label it is felt during absolute silence.

Ah yes, a personal experience. I respect that, yet it has essentially zero relevance to anyone that's not you.

Proof is deductive. So, what X are we going to deduce the existence of God from? Next, the atheists are going to ask us to deduce X itself from some X2. Hence, proof of God is an exercise in infinite regress.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 5:55 pm

Fairy wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 6:53 am

LuckyR wrote: ↑Thu Jun 12, 2025 6:19 pm

The creator as interpreted by whom? Yourself, a religion, a text?

Direct experience. I cannot refute, deny or experience the absence of direct experience.

This doesn’t necessarily need a label it is felt during absolute silence.

Ah yes, a personal experience. I respect that, yet it has essentially zero relevance to anyone that's not you.

Because God exists as an absolute all proofs of God must fail.

LuckyR wrote: ↑Fri Jun 13, 2025 5:55 pm Ah yes, a personal experience. I respect that, yet it has essentially zero relevance to anyone that's not you.

You’re a thought, a mental construction. Can “thought” ever occupy “ no thought”
Prior to thought is the direct experience of blank selfless awareness.

Just deconstruct the construction. No point in playing these mind games. No point in creating needless complexity. The truth of what you are is a BLANK. A selfless awareness....then that means there is NO OTHER, and everything you have ever perceived was JUST AN APPEARANCE, A MIRAGE, AN ILLUSION, IMAGINARY.