The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
I was inspired by some discussion in other threads (about metaphysics and its first principles of existence/being, etc.), and have flushed a few insight's.
Flush?
Curious use of a word.
When you ask "have to" you are implying a volition. In this case your conclusion is very much included in your premises.
I think you would have to take a step further back and ask if any question which includes this sort of imperitive "has to", has any meaning at all.
Maybe you should flush again to see if you can first clear the blockage?
If I could zero-in on the last comment. You said "...since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven." Can you elucidate your thoughts on that a bit? The reason I ask is that it opens a big can of obvious discourse that we both may find intriguing (once we dig a little deeper).
It may go back to an awesome/infamous philosophical question: what does it mean for something to exist.
Topics in the physical can be proven or unproven or not, depending on various factors. The proofs lie with the reproducibility of the behavior of physical systems. The metaphysical, OTOH does not deal with the physical and while many claim to "know" a lot about these subjects, since they do not exist in the physical plane (and our perception apparatus does) we have no tool with which to make observations that would qualify as knowledge, thus why we have belief or faith instead (of knowledge).
Lucky!
Faith has nothing to do with consciousness. Nor human sentience, which all three in-themselves are primarily metaphysical in nature. So the question for Lucky could be: are these things-in-themselves; 'faith' 'sentience', and 'consciousness' "unproven", yet exist?
Why are you going backwards (towards consciousness and sentience) when you are asking a forwards question (about faith, belief and proofs/knowledge)?
We all stipulate consciousness and sentience since we're here. There is no additional value in pondering the nuances of what we all agree is happening.
Lucky!
I'm not sure I'm following your question/concern. I asked... "Faith has nothing to do with consciousness. Nor human sentience, which all three in-themselves are primarily metaphysical in nature. So the question for Lucky could be: are these things-in-themselves; 'faith' 'sentience', and 'consciousness' "unproven", yet exist? "
Nonetheless, your second point seems more germane to the subject matter. You say "...we all stipulate..." that sounds like logical necessity. Did I interpret that correctly?
“Concerning matter, we have been all wrong. What we have called matter is energy, whose vibration has been so lowered as to be perceptible to the senses. There is no matter.” "Spooky Action at a Distance"
― Albert Einstein