Atheism is not Logical

[3017Metaphysician]

Alta!

Interesting! Well, if you are correct, we must parse, then, your supposition (s). Are you saying that one's subjective truth precedes (or enjoys primacy over) one's objective truth? Please provide clarification, if you can.

What do you mean by one's objective truth? What we treat as if it were objective, like in science?

1. Are you now saying "essence doesn't exist by itself"? What, then, coincides or is the opposite of essence?

What is the difference between the red quale and the essence of the red quale? There is none, they are one and the same thing said twice. Same goes for something more complicated, like a car.
Same goes for everything else, the existence vs. essence duality makes no sense.

2. Support your supposition that there is only one way to know something, if you can? One can know about gravity in two ways, no?

Knowing gravity "abstractly" and knowing gravity "concretely" are just two different forms of human thinking/perception, that may happen in different parts of the human brain/mind.

3. If our thinking is incapable of integrating duality, does that make us a dualist in our epistemology? Could that be analogous to emotion and logic?

Human thinking, especially Western male human thinking, is more like inherently dualistic. It's much harder to integrate non-duality, perhaps impossible.

Dialecticians claim that unity or identity of opposites can exist in reality or in thought. If the opposites were completely balanced, the result would be stasis, but often it is implied that one of the pairs of opposites is larger, stronger or more powerful than the other, such that over time, one of the opposed conditions prevails over the other. Yet rather than 'stasis' the identity of opposites, there being unity within their duality, is taken to be the instance of their very manifestation, the unity between them being the essential principle of making any particular opposite in question extant as either opposing force. For example 'upward' cannot exist unless there is a 'downward', they are opposites but they co-substantiate one another, their unity is that either one exists because the opposite is necessary for the existence of the other, one manifests immediately with the other. Hot would not be hot without cold, due to there being no contrast by which to define it as 'hot' relative to any other condition, it would not and could not have identity whatsoever if not for its very opposite that makes the necessary prerequisite existence for the opposing condition to be. This is the oneness, unity, principle to the very existence of any opposite. Either one's identity is the contra-posing principle itself, necessitating the other. The criteria for what is opposite is therefore something a priori.

Unity or identity of opposites is a realization about how human thinking works. Human thinking is always relative. What we then have to realize is that reality itself does NOT work like that. Looks like the above philosophy did the exact opposite?

1. During cognition, does the Will precede the intellect or the opposite? And/or is it a little of both mixed together (emotion/logic being insoluble)?

Emotion/logic being insoluble, are we strictly talking about male minds, with mostly independent hemispheres?
I'm not sure either what will and intellect mean exactly here. "Will" as in a manifestation of self-awareness? It's all pretty fuzzy but I'd say the self-awareness is there even without the intellect, and can take shape for example through the intellect.
Excluding those people who lack self-awareness ("will") of course, I guess those only have intellect.

2. If, as you say an abstract formula can't contain anything, what about the qualities of consciousness? Aren't some of them abstract?

There are no qualities that are literally abstract, there is only abstract thinking.

3. Abstract means not having concrete or physical existence. Is the Will to be, physical or abstract? How about other emotive things-in-themselves from conscious existence?

Abstract thoughts themselves also have physical existence, but what they are "about", "abstract objects", do not.
The "will to be" sounds more like the survival instinct, that's not abstract. The will as in self-awareness taking shape, is I'd say typically abstract above 110 IQ. (abstract entity, abstract "I") 110-100 is a grey zone, below 100 people usually seem to have more concrete "I"s, fueled by the lingering self-awareness, but it's not really taking abstract shape.

I don't know what emotive things-in-themselves are.

Finally, this may/may not have more meaning (assuming you are an a-theist, which is totally fine); isn't the opposite of a-theism, theism? If not, how does an a-theist cognize their belief system? What is it based upon? And if it's not based upon theism, what word better captures that explanation/description?

Atheists have no positive belief in the existence of God/gods, I think that's all.
Strong atheists believe that there certainly is no God, weak atheists think there is (probably) no God but a negative can't be proven.

1. Objective truth= mathematics, no?

2. The difference is the genesis of the red quale's existence, no?

3. We have a agreement! did you not a agree to two ways of thinking about the same thing (abstract v. concrete), yes? And, how did you learn about things that are abstract in the first place? We seem capable of that understanding, no?

4. We have a agreement, I think! If there is only abstract thinking, what is it's purpose then?

5. The Will to be cannot be instinct no? Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to will yourself not to be (euthanasia), no?

6. Emotive things-in-themselves is human sentience. Is sentience concrete?

7. The definition of a-theism is a positive belief in no-God. How do you reconcile that from language?

Once we get through these, we still have more to go, hang in there!

[3017Metaphysician]

Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:

Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.

Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?

Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.

God bless him:

[Pattern-chaser]

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Thank you for making my case.
Since there is not sufficient reason to believe in a god, then atheism is the default position requiring no assertions.

Disingenuous is a word that springs to mind. What is the word for the logical () fallacy of part-quoting someone to change the seeming meaning they intend?



I said this:

Logic - a rational, serious, and structured mode of thought - dictates that we accept a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

Exactly the same logic dictates that we reject a theoretical possibility if, and only if, we have sufficient reason.

If we have insufficient reason, logic dictates that we stop short of a conclusion. The theoretical possibility in question goes back into the maybe-bucket, and that is the "scepticism" that Sy Borg refers to, I think.

The first line is the non-contentious one, the one everyone knows and understands. It introduces the 2nd line, which (somehow) logicians never seem to realise. Funny that...

[3017Metaphysician]

Indeed. The human need for having and wanting emotion often transcends logic LOL:

Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.

Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?

Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.

Oops, I forgot to ask you, Spock has passed God Bless him, but does his spirit of inspiration live on?

[Atla]

1. Objective truth= mathematics, no?

2. The difference is the genesis of the red quale's existence, no?

3. We have a agreement! did you not a agree to two ways of thinking about the same thing (abstract v. concrete), yes? And, how did you learn about things that are abstract in the first place? We seem capable of that understanding, no?

4. We have a agreement, I think! If there is only abstract thinking, what is it's purpose then?

5. The Will to be cannot be instinct no? Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to will yourself not to be (euthanasia), no?

6. Emotive things-in-themselves is human sentience. Is sentience concrete?

7. The definition of a-theism is a positive belief in no-God. How do you reconcile that from language?

Once we get through these, we still have more to go, hang in there!

1. I don't think so. It's true that mathemathics never seems to fail, but then again, the "laws" of the known universe never seem to fail either. Maybe mathemathics is just a reflection of the orderedness of the natural world, but still not objective truth.

2. Why would it need a genesis? It just is.

3. Yes, although things that are abstract "in the first place" are simply abstracts thoughts thought by other people earlier.

4. I don't think it has any purpose that would be relevant here.

5. Of course it's an instinct, but instincts aren't absolute. Some people are suffering so much that it outweighs the survival instinct.

6. I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think emotions are typically concrete.

7. STRONG atheism is a positive belief in no-God. Strong atheists are idiots.

[Sculptor1]

Mr Spock won't help you here.
The thread is about "logic" please stick the problem.

Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?

Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.

Oops, I forgot to ask you, Spock has passed God Bless him, but does his spirit of inspiration live on?

Spock is not dead, like Christ (another fictional character), he lives on on many incarnations, and will probably outlast Christ.
Leonard Nimoy, though, is dead. He has not "passed". I had no idea death was an exam. I'm pretty sure you don't need to pass, you just end.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. Objective truth= mathematics, no?

2. The difference is the genesis of the red quale's existence, no?

3. We have a agreement! did you not a agree to two ways of thinking about the same thing (abstract v. concrete), yes? And, how did you learn about things that are abstract in the first place? We seem capable of that understanding, no?

4. We have a agreement, I think! If there is only abstract thinking, what is it's purpose then?

5. The Will to be cannot be instinct no? Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to will yourself not to be (euthanasia), no?

6. Emotive things-in-themselves is human sentience. Is sentience concrete?

7. The definition of a-theism is a positive belief in no-God. How do you reconcile that from language?

Once we get through these, we still have more to go, hang in there!

1. I don't think so. It's true that mathemathics never seems to fail, but then again, the "laws" of the known universe never seem to fail either. Maybe mathemathics is just a reflection of the orderedness of the natural world, but still not objective truth.

2. Why would it need a genesis? It just is.

3. Yes, although things that are abstract "in the first place" are simply abstracts thoughts thought by other people earlier.

4. I don't think it has any purpose that would be relevant here.

5. Of course it's an instinct, but instincts aren't absolute. Some people are suffering so much that it outweighs the survival instinct.

6. I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think emotions are typically concrete.

7. STRONG atheism is a positive belief in no-God. Strong atheists are idiots.

1. What then, in your view, are objective truth's?

1a. Are both subjectivity and objectivity necessary for existence ?

2. Do you yourself have a beginning or genesis?

3. Does that mean cause and effect exists?

4. When is purpose relevant?

5. So, if a person suffers long enough, what is it that causes them to kill themselves?

6. Explain how emotions are concrete, if you can?

7. Is describing strong a-theist's, (in your words) "are idiots" an emotional response of some sort? Bonus question: what makes an idiot an idiot, lack of logic, emotion or both?

Hang in there... !

[3017Metaphysician]

Sure! The problem seems to be that most a-theists based their belief system on emotion rather than logic, no?

Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.

Oops, I forgot to ask you, Spock has passed God Bless him, but does his spirit of inspiration live on?

Spock is not dead, like Christ (another fictional character), he lives on on many incarnations, and will probably outlast Christ.
Leonard Nimoy, though, is dead. He has not "passed". I had no idea death was an exam. I'm pretty sure you don't need to pass, you just end.

Was George Washington a fictional character too?

[Atla]

1. Objective truth= mathematics, no?

2. The difference is the genesis of the red quale's existence, no?

3. We have a agreement! did you not a agree to two ways of thinking about the same thing (abstract v. concrete), yes? And, how did you learn about things that are abstract in the first place? We seem capable of that understanding, no?

4. We have a agreement, I think! If there is only abstract thinking, what is it's purpose then?

5. The Will to be cannot be instinct no? Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to will yourself not to be (euthanasia), no?

6. Emotive things-in-themselves is human sentience. Is sentience concrete?

7. The definition of a-theism is a positive belief in no-God. How do you reconcile that from language?

Once we get through these, we still have more to go, hang in there!

1. I don't think so. It's true that mathemathics never seems to fail, but then again, the "laws" of the known universe never seem to fail either. Maybe mathemathics is just a reflection of the orderedness of the natural world, but still not objective truth.

2. Why would it need a genesis? It just is.

3. Yes, although things that are abstract "in the first place" are simply abstracts thoughts thought by other people earlier.

4. I don't think it has any purpose that would be relevant here.

5. Of course it's an instinct, but instincts aren't absolute. Some people are suffering so much that it outweighs the survival instinct.

6. I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think emotions are typically concrete.

7. STRONG atheism is a positive belief in no-God. Strong atheists are idiots.

1. What then, in your view, are objective truth's?

1a. Are both subjectivity and objectivity necessary for existence ?

2. Do you yourself have a beginning or genesis?

3. Does that mean cause and effect exists?

4. When is purpose relevant?

5. So, if a person suffers long enough, what is it that causes them to kill themselves?

6. Explain how emotions are concrete, if you can?

7. Is describing strong a-theist's, (in your words) "are idiots" an emotional response of some sort? Bonus question: what makes an idiot an idiot, lack of logic, emotion or both?

Hang in there... !

1. ? Humans can't access objective truth. (The one exception is the objective truth that: there is something rather than nothing.)

1a. No, and why would existence have any prerequsites?

2. Which "myself"? "Me" as this human can be seen to have started at a place and time, and will end at another place and time.
But fundamentally, "me" or rather "us" as reality itself, which also included all places and all times, never had a beginning, or at least I don't think it did.

3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, iare inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes.

4. I mean it doesn't have a "purpose" that would be relevant to the topic. But the existence of abstract thinking, and the abstract "I", are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of the ultimate "why are we here / what is all about" question.

5. Their desire/instinct to avoid suffering is stronger than their desire/instinct to go on living.

6. As far as I know, they are probably mostly made of chemicals and maybe EM fields, that simply flood across brain/mind regions. They don't really form patterns that would "point" to things beyond themselves. Though I haven't looked into this much.

7. Idiots? Lack of intelligence mostly. It's fairly obvious that one can't prove a negative. My response wasn't primarily emotional.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. Objective truth= mathematics, no?

2. The difference is the genesis of the red quale's existence, no?

3. We have a agreement! did you not a agree to two ways of thinking about the same thing (abstract v. concrete), yes? And, how did you learn about things that are abstract in the first place? We seem capable of that understanding, no?

4. We have a agreement, I think! If there is only abstract thinking, what is it's purpose then?

5. The Will to be cannot be instinct no? Otherwise you wouldn't have the capacity to will yourself not to be (euthanasia), no?

6. Emotive things-in-themselves is human sentience. Is sentience concrete?

7. The definition of a-theism is a positive belief in no-God. How do you reconcile that from language?

Once we get through these, we still have more to go, hang in there!

1. I don't think so. It's true that mathemathics never seems to fail, but then again, the "laws" of the known universe never seem to fail either. Maybe mathemathics is just a reflection of the orderedness of the natural world, but still not objective truth.

2. Why would it need a genesis? It just is.

3. Yes, although things that are abstract "in the first place" are simply abstracts thoughts thought by other people earlier.

4. I don't think it has any purpose that would be relevant here.

5. Of course it's an instinct, but instincts aren't absolute. Some people are suffering so much that it outweighs the survival instinct.

6. I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think emotions are typically concrete.

7. STRONG atheism is a positive belief in no-God. Strong atheists are idiots.

1. What then, in your view, are objective truth's?

1a. Are both subjectivity and objectivity necessary for existence ?

2. Do you yourself have a beginning or genesis?

3. Does that mean cause and effect exists?

4. When is purpose relevant?

5. So, if a person suffers long enough, what is it that causes them to kill themselves?

6. Explain how emotions are concrete, if you can?

7. Is describing strong a-theist's, (in your words) "are idiots" an emotional response of some sort? Bonus question: what makes an idiot an idiot, lack of logic, emotion or both?

Hang in there... !

1. ? Humans can't access objective truth. (The one exception is the objective truth that: there is something rather than nothing.)

1a. No, and why would existence have any prerequisites?

2. Which "myself"? "Me" as this human can be seen to have started at a place and time, and will end at another place and time.
But fundamentally, "me" or rather "us" as reality itself, which also included all places and all times, never had a beginning, or at least I don't think it did.

3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, iare inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes.

4. I mean it doesn't have a "purpose" that would be relevant to the topic. But the existence of abstract thinking, and the abstract "I", are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of the ultimate "why are we here / what is all about" question.

5. Their desire/instinct to avoid suffering is stronger than their desire/instinct to go on living.

6. As far as I know, they are probably mostly made of chemicals and maybe EM fields, that simply flood across brain/mind regions. They don't really form patterns that would "point" to things beyond themselves. Though I haven't looked into this much.

7. Idiots? Lack of intelligence mostly. It's fairly obvious that one can't prove a negative. My response wasn't primarily emotional.

1. Is math objective or subjective or both?

1a.Prerequisites are required for cause and effect, no?

3. So you agree there is a genesis or an essence to your being (your mom and dad)?

4. What's illogical about cause and effect/determinism?

4.a Is free will an illusion too?

5. So now you're back-peddling a bit. What is purpose then, concrete or abstract or both?

6. Do you know, then, that you exist in a concrete or abstract way, or in both ways?

7. What is intelligence, is something concrete?

Keep hanging in there... !

[Atla]

1. I don't think so. It's true that mathemathics never seems to fail, but then again, the "laws" of the known universe never seem to fail either. Maybe mathemathics is just a reflection of the orderedness of the natural world, but still not objective truth.

2. Why would it need a genesis? It just is.

3. Yes, although things that are abstract "in the first place" are simply abstracts thoughts thought by other people earlier.

4. I don't think it has any purpose that would be relevant here.

5. Of course it's an instinct, but instincts aren't absolute. Some people are suffering so much that it outweighs the survival instinct.

6. I don't know what you mean by those words, but I think emotions are typically concrete.

7. STRONG atheism is a positive belief in no-God. Strong atheists are idiots.

1. What then, in your view, are objective truth's?

1a. Are both subjectivity and objectivity necessary for existence ?

2. Do you yourself have a beginning or genesis?

3. Does that mean cause and effect exists?

4. When is purpose relevant?

5. So, if a person suffers long enough, what is it that causes them to kill themselves?

6. Explain how emotions are concrete, if you can?

7. Is describing strong a-theist's, (in your words) "are idiots" an emotional response of some sort? Bonus question: what makes an idiot an idiot, lack of logic, emotion or both?

Hang in there... !

1. ? Humans can't access objective truth. (The one exception is the objective truth that: there is something rather than nothing.)

1a. No, and why would existence have any prerequisites?

2. Which "myself"? "Me" as this human can be seen to have started at a place and time, and will end at another place and time.
But fundamentally, "me" or rather "us" as reality itself, which also included all places and all times, never had a beginning, or at least I don't think it did.

3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, iare inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes.

4. I mean it doesn't have a "purpose" that would be relevant to the topic. But the existence of abstract thinking, and the abstract "I", are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of the ultimate "why are we here / what is all about" question.

5. Their desire/instinct to avoid suffering is stronger than their desire/instinct to go on living.

6. As far as I know, they are probably mostly made of chemicals and maybe EM fields, that simply flood across brain/mind regions. They don't really form patterns that would "point" to things beyond themselves. Though I haven't looked into this much.

7. Idiots? Lack of intelligence mostly. It's fairly obvious that one can't prove a negative. My response wasn't primarily emotional.

1. Is math objective or subjective or both?

1a.Prerequisites are required for cause and effect, no?

3. So you agree there is a genesis or an essence to your being (your mom and dad)?

4. What's illogical about cause and effect/determinism?

4.a Is free will an illusion too?

5. So now you're back-peddling a bit. What is purpose then, concrete or abstract or both?

6. Do you know, then, that you exist in a concrete or abstract way, or in both ways?

7. What is intelligence, is something concrete?

Keep hanging in there... !

Why are you asking me about almost every topic in philosophy, are we going anywhere?

1. Don't know, I guess it's a bit of both. Maybe it's a reflection of our universe, but there may be many subjective ways to create such a reflection, and there may be infinitely many stable, ordered universes with infinitely many possible mathemathics-es?
What I do know however is that mathemathical Platonists are wrong, abstract mathemathical objects don't literally exist.

1a, 3. No, calling my mom and dad "genesis" or "essence" is pretty weird. Plus my mom and dad can't fundamentally be separated from the rest of the universe, so why single them out.
That's the same reason why we can't single out prerequisites either. Everything is non-separable from everyting else in the universe.
And if all spacetime goes in a loop, then there is no real "pre" in the first place. What is "pre" is the same as a distant "post".

4. What is illogical is absolute point-to-point linearity of "cause and effect", instead of absolute circularity of "cause and effect". Determinism isn't illogical.

4a, Ultimately yes, but that kind of determinism is also shaped by the actions we take under the assumption that we have free will. From our perspective we often can make a difference, when under the assumption that we have free will. That too is determined.

5. Purpose? I don't think there really is any abstract purpose to anything. But there may be some "purpose", in other words some kind of natural reason, or explanation or whatever, why we are here.

6. Both. Unless I only want to identify with my abstract core, but I don't want to do that.

7. Intelligence as in what is measured by IQ, is rather concrete. If it contains lots of abstract thinking then it can produce many "abstract things". But all abstract thinking is literally made of concrete brain/mind workings too.

[Sculptor1]

Yes. So it is Theism that is illogical, not atheism.
Case closed.

Oops, I forgot to ask you, Spock has passed God Bless him, but does his spirit of inspiration live on?

Spock is not dead, like Christ (another fictional character), he lives on on many incarnations, and will probably outlast Christ.
Leonard Nimoy, though, is dead. He has not "passed". I had no idea death was an exam. I'm pretty sure you don't need to pass, you just end.

Was George Washington a fictional character too?

Not as much as JC.
Its probably true that there was a Rabbi that was crucified.
But the discrepant accounts indicate a cobbling together of borrowed myths and composites.
And all depictions are essentially fictional and bear little relationship to anyone living a that time.
The man was a far cry from the Teutonic Beauty he is often depicted.

[3017Metaphysician]

1. What then, in your view, are objective truth's?

1a. Are both subjectivity and objectivity necessary for existence ?

2. Do you yourself have a beginning or genesis?

3. Does that mean cause and effect exists?

4. When is purpose relevant?

5. So, if a person suffers long enough, what is it that causes them to kill themselves?

6. Explain how emotions are concrete, if you can?

7. Is describing strong a-theist's, (in your words) "are idiots" an emotional response of some sort? Bonus question: what makes an idiot an idiot, lack of logic, emotion or both?

Hang in there... !

1. ? Humans can't access objective truth. (The one exception is the objective truth that: there is something rather than nothing.)

1a. No, and why would existence have any prerequisites?

2. Which "myself"? "Me" as this human can be seen to have started at a place and time, and will end at another place and time.
But fundamentally, "me" or rather "us" as reality itself, which also included all places and all times, never had a beginning, or at least I don't think it did.

3. I think cause and effect as normally understood, iare inherently illogical. I think the case is probably that dimensions are circular, time and space go in circle but without repeating. It's all a closed loop. So we have the appearance of cause and effect, and it's very useful from our linear perspective, but nothing actually changes.

4. I mean it doesn't have a "purpose" that would be relevant to the topic. But the existence of abstract thinking, and the abstract "I", are pieces of the jigsaw puzzle of the ultimate "why are we here / what is all about" question.

5. Their desire/instinct to avoid suffering is stronger than their desire/instinct to go on living.

6. As far as I know, they are probably mostly made of chemicals and maybe EM fields, that simply flood across brain/mind regions. They don't really form patterns that would "point" to things beyond themselves. Though I haven't looked into this much.

7. Idiots? Lack of intelligence mostly. It's fairly obvious that one can't prove a negative. My response wasn't primarily emotional.

1. Is math objective or subjective or both?

1a.Prerequisites are required for cause and effect, no?

3. So you agree there is a genesis or an essence to your being (your mom and dad)?

4. What's illogical about cause and effect/determinism?

4.a Is free will an illusion too?

5. So now you're back-peddling a bit. What is purpose then, concrete or abstract or both?

6. Do you know, then, that you exist in a concrete or abstract way, or in both ways?

7. What is intelligence, is something concrete?

Keep hanging in there... !

Why are you asking me about almost every topic in philosophy, are we going anywhere?

1. Don't know, I guess it's a bit of both. Maybe it's a reflection of our universe, but there may be many subjective ways to create such a reflection, and there may be infinitely many stable, ordered universes with infinitely many possible mathemathics-es?
What I do know however is that mathemathical Platonists are wrong, abstract mathemathical objects don't literally exist.

1a, 3. No, calling my mom and dad "genesis" or "essence" is pretty weird. Plus my mom and dad can't fundamentally be separated from the rest of the universe, so why single them out.
That's the same reason why we can't single out prerequisites either. Everything is non-separable from everyting else in the universe.
And if all spacetime goes in a loop, then there is no real "pre" in the first place. What is "pre" is the same as a distant "post".

4. What is illogical is absolute point-to-point linearity of "cause and effect", instead of absolute circularity of "cause and effect". Determinism isn't illogical.

4a, Ultimately yes, but that kind of determinism is also shaped by the actions we take under the assumption that we have free will. From our perspective we often can make a difference, when under the assumption that we have free will. That too is determined.

5. Purpose? I don't think there really is any abstract purpose to anything. But there may be some "purpose", in other words some kind of natural reason, or explanation or whatever, why we are here.

6. Both. Unless I only want to identify with my abstract core, but I don't want to do that.

7. Intelligence as in what is measured by IQ, is rather concrete. If it contains lots of abstract thinking then it can produce many "abstract things". But all abstract thinking is literally made of concrete brain/mind workings too.

Alta!

To answer your opening question, the universal concept of a God (or the opposite of no-God) at the very least, spans not only human causation, but 'cosmological causation' as well. The concept of God is postulated throughout antiquity and in over 75% of all philosophical domains.

Let's take a quick snapshot in time. You are trying to support your position that there are basically no apposing features of existence necessary for understanding the actual nature of existence (or reality whichever makes the best sense to you), correct?

Well, first, you started to pretend that you know some-thing, now through this sojourn of fac- finding you're either back-peddling or claiming ignorance. Sorry to be so brutally honest. For example, you said earlier that there are no objective truth's (correct me please) and no subject-object dynamic, now you are saying there are a little of both. And so, it would be wise to now slow down and parse each of your suppositions individually in order to clarify your position. Accordingly, my critique of your response number 1, to the opposite's of subjectivity an objectivity (which you are denying):

a. Are the following true or false relative to ojective truth:

1. Math is objective
2. Math doesn't care what people thing about it (necessarily)
3. Math is metaphysical
4. Math is an unchanging truth
5. Math describes the universe
6. Math has no Darwinian survival advantages
7. Analytic propositions are the same (process of deduction/a priori) as the nature of Math.

b. Does math require a subject in order to appercieve mathematical equasions?

c. You say that mahtematical objects don't exist. If mathematical objects are objective facts describing and to some degree explaining) the univrse, are you also implying that the universe doesn't exist?

d. If conscious existence includes abstract 'objects' of reason or cognition (math/intellect/the Will/sentience) and, you are claiming abstract objects really don't exist, does that imply that you yourself don't really exist?

[3017Metaphysician]

Oops, I forgot to ask you, Spock has passed God Bless him, but does his spirit of inspiration live on?

Spock is not dead, like Christ (another fictional character), he lives on on many incarnations, and will probably outlast Christ.
Leonard Nimoy, though, is dead. He has not "passed". I had no idea death was an exam. I'm pretty sure you don't need to pass, you just end.

Was George Washington a fictional character too?

Not as much as JC.
Its probably true that there was a Rabbi that was crucified.
But the discrepant accounts indicate a cobbling together of borrowed myths and composites.
And all depictions are essentially fictional and bear little relationship to anyone living a that time.
The man was a far cry from the Teutonic Beauty he is often depicted.
image_2022-06-15_215345233.png

Just an observation. And please don't take this the wrong way. "Not as much" isn't really telling us anything, is it? Maybe a more intriguing question for an a-theist such as yourself, would be whether or not you know for certain that you yourself exist. Can you be certain of that, or "Not as much"?

Otherwise, I sense that you feel the need to just troll this thread. Emotional descrepancies, again?

[Sy Borg]

Is there an aggregated intelligence of which we are not aware? We do not know for sure, so scepticism is more logical than outright disbelief.

There is no LOGIC here.

Ok. So logic to you is that humans (or some other similar kind of aliens) are 100% certain to be the ultimate expression of sentience in the universe, and we can have total confidence that aggregated sentience cannot possibly emerge.

Even Dawkins would disagree with you.

I have resolved to no longer respond to cheap straw men. If you want to discuss something then you should not misrepresent your interlocutor's POV.
I expected better from you.

My post seemed appropriate to your Twitteresque CAPS response, which was little better than "Nyah nyah nyah". If you don't want to give the wrong impression about your stances, you need to communicate with eloquence and temperance. Not snarky, reflexive jabs.

Again, absolute certainty about the existence of a larger, aggregated intelligence (aka a deities) is illogical but scepticism towards such things in lieu of evidence is logical.

Dawkins rated belief and atheism on a seven-point scale, with 1 being total belief and 7 being total disbelief. He rated himself as a 6.