Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Belindi]

Are there any sweary words that mean 'praise'?

[3017Metaphysician]

Hey Lucky, happy Friday! What are you trying to say there? Are you an Atheists, Theist, or something else....(?)

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

[PoeticUniverse]

3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Yes, and just as any other temporary universe would have a cause from the permanent natural eternal existent that needs no magic for it to be since the eternal existent has no alternative or option not to be because 'non-existence' cannot even be meant, much less said to be productive as a source.

It's no surprise that the eternal existent is mandatory! It's not much to speak of, but the 'vacuum' is not a vacuum.


The Fundamental Unity

The quantum fields’ unity is the Whole,
Being ever, exhausting Reality,
Unbreakable and Unmakeable,
As partless and continuous monads.

Indivisible

All that emerges is still the fields at heart,
Though secondary and temporary,
Arising and at some time returning;
There’s no separation among the fields.

The Permanent Spawns the Temporaries

The Eterne Existent Fields have to be,
For non-existence can’t, and thus must move,
For stillness can’t, e’er rearranging itself
As stable quanta elementaries.

Skeletons and Ghosts

We’re the flesh to the backbones of the stars,
Those ghosts of the suns that no longer are—
They having transformed their energy’s ways
To base atoms, more from supernovae.

The Missive

The Message of Eternity is to be,
That carries on in lives led to survive,
The brain’s output aiming for future,
Conscious experience granting the focus.

[Sy Borg]

It reminds me of the time years ago when I was given a ******** for saying that nothingness does not exist. Oops.

I can't see what the ****** is but I assume it's something like "stern rebuke". Anyway, don't get me started on nothingnessnessnessness.

I did not realise that b0ll0cking was such a horrifying and dangerous word that readers would needed protection from it.

[LuckyR]

I am trying to point out that what passes for theism in the vast majority of cases, organized religion, is fundamentally illogical though admittedly not unprovable. The specific idea of theism of a cosmological variety divorced from religion is comforting and has psychological value. I am conflicted on that personally and would be best described as not disbelieving that.

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.

[3017Metaphysician]

Lucky!

I understand the conflicted feelings. But for the sake of argument, if the ontological argument is true, then objectively, how does one go about refuting it?

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?

[LuckyR]

Do you mean the ontological argument where it is impossible imagine anything bigger than God? Can you imagine anything with spines that could compare with the spines of God, should God decide to be spiky?

The ontological argument does not work, or rather, it works with any attribute you care to mention? Can anyone be saltier than God? Wetter? Hotter? Better at playing the Chapman Stick? Could anyone make macramé as good as one that God sewed up?

It reminds me of the Larson cartoon with three contestants in a game show - God and two normal people. God has something like 8,000 points and the people scored zero. Yeah, if God exists, then God is the best. If God exists.

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.

[3017Metaphysician]

Lucky!

Sure. Go ahead and put your 'concepts' in a logico-deductive argument and we can have some fun with parsing its truth-values.

The 'concept' of God that relates to 'nothing greater can be imagined' is based on 'definition standards', or if you prefer, pure reason. At the risk of redundancy, it goes something like this:

1.By definition, God is a being than which none greater can be imagined.
2.A being that necessarily exists in reality is greater than a being that does not necessarily exist.
3.Thus, by definition, if God exists as an idea in the mind but does not necessarily exist in reality, then we can imagine something that is greater than God.
4.But we cannot imagine something that is greater than God.
5.Thus, if God exists in the mind as an idea, then God necessarily exists in reality.
6.God exists in the mind as an idea.
7.Therefore, God necessarily exists in reality.

Personally, I prefer the Cosmological argument because its a bit more intriguing. And that's because of causation and infinite regress, temporal time v eternal time, the BB, Singularity, and the like. In other words, since the BB does not posit where the Singularity came from, we naturally posit the concept of God as the mathematical super-turtle:

“Even if there is only one possible unified theory, it is just a set of rules and equations. What is it that breathes fire into the equations and makes a universe for them to describe? The usual approach of science of constructing a mathematical model cannot answer the questions of why there should be a universe for the model to describe. Why does the universe go to all the bother of existing?”

― Stephen Hawking [Atheist], A Brief History of Time

Thus:

1.Whatever begins to exist has a cause of its existence.
2.The universe began to exist.
3.Therefore, the universe has a cause of its existence.

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.

Lucky!

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.

[EricPH]

since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven."

The creation of the universe is history. Either at least 'One God'created the universe and life, or there is no creator god. No matter what you or I may choose to believe we can't change history. You could be a 100% right or wrong on the toss of a coin.

There cannot be a maybe or probable creator god, it's yes or no.

[PoeticUniverse]

There cannot be a maybe or probable creator god, it's yes or no.

Welcome, new member!

Believers tremble in fear of the Big Bad Boss,
His immorality untrusted not to cause loss—
Insanity hidden in ‘mysterious ways’;
They accept, so He them into Hell doesn’t toss.

God thought of, planned, designed, and implemented
Human Nature—angelic to demented,
And in His recipe’s span those expressed
Unsurprisingly had to be reinvented.

The Great Flood killed all but Noah’s near clan,
God acting against His own sixth Command,
Those dead being of God’s intended nature—
Yet another myth-take in rainbow land.

Yet, there was no Genesis of Man, as is,
In modern form, immutable, by a Wiz,
Nor a separate animal life line,
For He flunked out of evolution’s quiz.

We search for ‘God’, high and low, here and there,
Far and wide—He’s said to be ev’ry where;
But no omens are found: quasars abound;
So, He hides out or He’s truly nowhere.

[Tegularius]

Neither have to exist and consciousness does not require god to exist. If god had wanted it to exist, he could have arranged for it much, much sooner.

[LuckyR]

Seriously? The metaphysical (not provable) proven through loose "definitions" ie fancy wording? I think not. Typing on a laptop never proved anything, let alone the unprovable.

Why do theists persist in trying to prove an unprovable? Have your belief, have your faith. No one can prove you're wrong (just as you can't prove you're right). Isn't that the whole point of faith ie believing in something in the absence of proof? Doesn't faith make theism special? Anyone can believe something that can be proven to be true, that's mundane. Isn't theism supposed to be a higher calling?

You can go down the proof road if you want to but from my vantage point it is a fool's errand.

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.

Lucky!

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).

[Tegularius]

Eternity annuls all the gods that were
being as mortal as those who infer
the universe needed a mind to be made
as if predestined and all was prepaid.

[3017Metaphysician]

I don't think theists do what you think they do, Stephen Hawking [Atheist] uses the word/concept 'God' all the time? Have you read any of his books?

Anyway, I take your reply as a non-answer or nonresponsive to the discourse I layed-out.

As a post script (this seems emotionally charged), would you care to parse the meaning of your word "proof'? To answer your questions succinctly/respectively:

1. I don't know, I'm not a Theologian. But we were talking about the ontological argument that is based upon logical deduction (which you seemed to avoid for some reason).
2. Sure, pragmatically, one can have 'faith' in many things in life. Which, by the way, faith in and of itself is yet another quality of consciousness (Qualia) and is 'metaphysical' in nature and, does not have any biological survival value when emergent instinct would suffice.
3. What is a 'higher calling'?

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.

Lucky!

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?

[LuckyR]

I used the label proof on your 7 statements concluding that "God" (singular) exists. Was that not a proof using the standard definition of the word? If not what was that?

You are correct that my posting is not a direct answer to your proposition, since commenting on proofs of the unprovable is a nonstarter. It sounds like I failed to communicate my opinion that both theism and religiosity are perfectly possible to be true and I don't have a problem with the idea and practice of folks believing in them. Here I am using the word "believing" as used in the situation when dealing with unknowable information as opposed to "knowing" in the situation where information is knowable.

We are in agreement that faith addresses the metaphysical.

I used higher calling as a way of drawing a distinction between the physical and the metaphysical (requiring more "buy in", since the metaphysical cannot be proven or unproven). The former capable of being addressed intellectually and the latter in many ways including emotionally.

Lucky!

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.