“Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)”

― Walt Whitman, Leaves of Grass

I apologize for the sarcasm - it was gratuitous and uncalled for. But dude? Do you see that you're contradicting yourself?

Now if you want to go Walt Whitman, that's OK. If you were to say something like "Yes, I know what I'm saying sounds contradictory, but please work with me and let's see where this goes"? There are folks out here who would take you up on it.

As example, astronomers seem to spend most of their time focused on things in space, instead of space itself. — Hippyhead

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community. — EricH

Could I please go on record as stating that I already know all this, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over? — Hippyhead

As long as you're at it, would you also please go on record acknowledging that you are contradicting yourself, so that members will be relieved of the burden of posting it over and over?

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Well duh, but yes.

do they increasingly fail to mirror reality, which is dominated by space, emptiness, a void? — Hippyhead

And now you are breaking your own principle. Space is not an empty void. It is full of particles, energy fields, etc. Countless numbers of matter anti-matter pairs pop into existence and then self annihilate.

It may not get the same attention as discoveries about new galaxies, but the nature of "space"is a subject of intense interest in the scientific community.

A principle that may earn wide agreement is the notion that one's philosophy should be built upon observation of reality. — Hippyhead

Couldn't agree more.

I'm not playing your games. Your inability after numerous requests to give a clear explanation of your terms demonstrates that you yourself don't understand what you're saying.

I give you the last word in this fruitless exchange.

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

At this point I'm still trying to understand what you're saying. When I first saw this sentence it seemed wrong to me since under the plain language usage of the word object - things you can bump into - there are clearly such physical attributes - mass, they occupy space, etc

But before pointing this out to you I wanted to double check how you were using the word objects in the context of this sentence. Hence my question about atoms, photons, etc.

And you responded that you were using the plain language definition

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

So clearly using YOUR definition/usage there ARE attributes that each and every object in the universe possesses.

We're in search of something that runs like a thread through all physical phenomena, in effect unifying them, just as producing milk for offspring unifies a segment of the living world as mammals. — TheMadFool

Now you seem to be changing things around. Instead of talking about objects you're now talking about physical phenomena. That's OK - perhaps "objects" was a poor choice of words (although it would be nice if you acknowledged that).

So one more time, and then I give up:

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Dear sir or madam - please clarify what you mean by the word objects in this sentence. Thank you.

[reply="TheMadFool;454262"

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH


Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool — EricH

Are you seriously suggesting that radio waves and thoughts are physical objects at the human scale?

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here. — EricH

Yes, I'm referring to objects at the human scale - things we can, well, bump into. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) — EricH

Thoughts don't have mass. Radio waves don't have mass. Photons don't have mass. — TheMadFool

I'm OK working with however you choose to define your terms - but you gotta pick a usage/definition and stick to it. When you use the word objects? Are you including thoughts & photons in your usage/definition?

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Perhaps I'm totally misunderstanding what you're saying, but given your definition of object don't all objects posses the physical attribute of having rest mass (among other properties) ?

there isn't an attribute that each and every object in the universe possesses. — TheMadFool

Could you clarify how you are using the word object here.

E.g., Are you referring to physical objects - chairs, planets? Are you going more granular down to atoms, electrons, sub-atomic particles? Photons? etc.

Sing a song, dance joyfully, cherish every moment

You're over thinking it :smile:

Breathe in, breathe out, repeat . . . . . . My 2 cents worth.

But that's not what Trump was saying. He was saying that even if we do not have a vaccine, herd mentality (his words) would eventually eliminate COVID. He just neglected to mention that this would cost millions of lives.

The fact that slavery and legalized segregation are gone does not mean that systemic racism has disappeared. The fact that things are not as horrible as they were 200 or 100 years ago does not mean that everything is OK. By any unit of measurement, people of color are at a severe disadvantage - income, infant mortality, health care, jail sentencing, etc, etc, etc.

One more time. If you think that there is no systemic racism in the USA go do your own survey. Talk to some black people - listen to their experiences of what life is like on a daily basis.

Atheism as argument is not on any position regarding God, it is instead a pointing out of the inadequacy of the arguments of theists. — tim wood

Ah - back to the Definition Wars.

According to wikipedia:
Atheism is in the broadest sense an absence of belief in the existence of deities. Less broadly, atheism is a rejection of the belief that any deities exist. In an even narrower sense, atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities.
So according to wikipedia you use the term atheist in the broadest sense. Atheist.org also takes this stance.

However, if we look in dictionary.com, we see that atheism is the doctrine or belief that there is no God. A quick google search will find similar definitions in many places.

The broad definition also invalidates the commonly accepted definition of agnosticism - agnosticism was coined as a term coined by Huxley specifically to differentiate his thinking from atheism - but with this "broad" definition of atheism, agnosticism is simply a subset of atheism.

My take on this is that the "broad" definition of atheism is too broad - and it goes against the commonly accepted definition of the terms. If you ask the average person on the street what these terms mean they'll say atheists deny that god exists (the less broad or narrow sense) and agnostics aren't sure (i.e. agnostics are not atheists).

And all this this leaves me - a lonely ignostic - out of the conversation altogether. :smile:

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person. — EricH

Wrong. There are many of blacks that make more than many whites combined. — Harry Hindu

The fact that a small percentage of black people have achieved financial success is irrelevant to the discussion.

This didn't answer my question. — Harry Hindu

Correct. if you are in denial that systematic racism still exists in the USA, then there is no point in discussing how to address it.

Does systematic racism still exist in the USA? I'll repeat myself. Don't take my word for it. Don't rely any surveys or statistics. Go out and do your own research. Talk to 10 black people and ask them about their experiences. Report your results here.

I guess we can add lying to your list of possible responses. — tim wood

I'll disagree with you on this one. It's not that they are lying - or even stupid or ignorant.

They have (metaphorically) painted themselves into a philosophical corner. For them to acknowledge even the smallest possibility that they are wrong would require a completely re-wiring of their thought processes & the way they conceive themselves. (I'm sure there are better ways of expressing this)

That is not going to happen due to any online exchange.

The best one can hope for is that a seed has been planted that may take years to bear fruit. Cursing and insults are counter-productive in this regard. My 2 cents. . . .

It was the best of times, it was the worst of times.
OK, Mr. Dickens which was it? Was the best of times or the worst of times. You can't have it both ways. You're violating LEM there Mr. Dickens.

Really? I'd call it illogical. — 3017amen

Exactly - you are asserting an illogical statement that has no basis in reality.

In the right context this sentence could be part of a poem or a work of literature. But there is no logical or philosophical conundrum here.

But how is driving and not driving possible? — 3017amen

That sentence has no meaning. You're back doing poetry.

The proposition that I was driving and not driving at the same time is true because it has more than two truth values; you were kind-of driving. — 3017amen

Are you saying that it is impossible for a person to do two things at the same time? I know I can. I can both drive and day dream at the same time. Of course, this is not a safe thing to do - but that is a separate issue.

My sole contribution to this interesting conversation: Musical Chairs

And just to demonstrate that I am a man of my word?

I give everyone else responding to my post the last word . . . . :grin:

If the results of systemic racism accrue over time, how long do we need to implement affirmative action before the balance is tipped? — Harry Hindu

For starter I take it that you would agree that 300 years of slavery and over 100 years of legally enforced segregation was not a good thing.

It seems to me that BLM will just keep asking for more, claiming that systemic racism still exists indefinitely, using cherry-picked stats. — Harry Hindu

If you're worried about future cherry picking, then OK. But there's no cherry picking currently going on.

All other things being equal - our USA society places a higher value on the life of a white person than that of a black person.

And it is a plain fact that no black person (other than small children) can ever be 100% sure that - without any warning - they could be subject to violent harm or death simply due to the color of their skin.

If you disagree with me then do your own random poll of, say, 10 black people and get back to me.

Will 13% of the population be fine with 13% of the wealth? Demanding more would be demanding more than your fair share. — Harry Hindu

Get back to me when black people actually have 13% of the wealth.

There's an expectation that if you start a new discussion then you should take part. Other than that it's entirely up to you.

Did someone post something that left you confused? Ask a question.

Did someone post something you think is really off? Hmmm. Now things get interesting. Does this poster sound knowledgeable? How much free time do you have? Does (s)he curse out other posters who disagree with them? Are you OK with being insulted? Etc.

Just seeing this discussion for the first time. I joined up about 2 years ago - mostly just to learn and pick up new things. I've bumped heads with a few folks here and there, but on the whole my experience out here has been positive for the most part. Your mileage may vary.

Before settling in here I checked out some of the other philosophy forums - the signal to noise ratio seems much higher here than the others. My 2 cents. . . . .

It may claim an inner logic or consistency, but that must remain internal, because it makes no claim to knowledge. — tim wood

I could be totally misreading them, but AFAICT 3017 is claiming that at least some portion of the Bible is factually correct. Of course you are correct.

Whether you're Christian, Taoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc.- all these groups believe in an underlying natural law. The only dispute is over the details but the existence of an inherent natural law is a premise that is common to all of them. — Ram

You're onto something here. If all these groups would simply get together and work out their differences - that would be an amazing event that could change the course of world history.

I suggest that instead of engaging in pointless on-line debates you do something to make this happen. Start a GoFundMe to - I would enthusiastically donate to that worthy cause.

No one who has read and understands the Bible even a little bit supposes it a history book. — tim wood

Millions of people around the world (such as our friend 3017) consider it to be either totally or substantially true. Of course one could counter that by saying that such people do not truly "understand" it, but now we're getting into No True Scotsman territory.

the so-called historical account of Jesus — 3017amen

Every once in a while you say something that I agree with and here you are correct. There is virtually no historical account of Jesus. The Bible is a work of fiction with a few historically accurate references.

Please allow me to introduce you two nice people to each other.

@nyimislam - Apologies if I have misinterpreted you, but you seem to have some sort of theistic beliefs.
@3017amen - You certainly have theistic beliefs.

Assuming I'm correct in that nyimislam has some sort of theistic beliefs, how's about you folks talk amongst yourselves - have a side conversation just the 2 of you.. Here is the topic of conversation: "How can we coherently discuss God in a way that people of all faiths can agree on?"

Please get back to the rest of us when you have the answer.

I was trying to talk him out of repeating the same thing over and over again

No, the usages of words, not words alone, have meaning or not. Read e.g. Philosophical Investigations and On Certainty, both by Ludwig Wittgenstein. — 180 Proof

There can be no doubt that early Wittgenstein - circa Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus - would have agreed with my assessment that religious language does not make any logical sense. What can be said at all can be said clearly and what we cannot talk about we must pass over in silence.

Later W modified his views - difficult to summarize in a paragraph or two since he's all over the map - but the short version is that later W considers religious discourse to be a particular language game with it's own internal rules & logic.

Here is a good summary: Wittgenstein on God

If you are interested in W's views on religion, I suggest you open up a new line of discussion. There are many people on this forum who are very knowledgeable & articulate about both early & later W.

If I were to accept your opinion that “God exists” is a nonsense poetic comment…I would have to accept that my take on the question, “I do not know if any gods exist” is also a nonsense poetic comment. — Frank Apisa

I am baffled at how I have said repeatedly over and over multiple times that - with your definition of "god(s)" as being a natural phenomena - I have no problem with your view.

Under your definition of "god(s)" it is hypothetically possible to assert a truth value. It is when you get into the realm of the supernatural that things morph from philosophy into poetry.

I was not ignoring you. To answer your comment - you and 180 & 3017 are asserting both P and ¬P.

What are you talking about exactly? — 180 Proof

I'm gonna start by going meta-conversation for a few minutes.

- - - - - - - - - - -
[Meta-conversation]
Even tho we are all using (or attempting to use) the English language to communicate here - in fact your world view and mine are so far apart that we can be using the same words yet we can be meaning entirely different things.

I am attempting to bridge the difference. This is an extraordinarily difficult task. To illustrate just how difficult this is, I'll give you an example.

From your perspective, the positions of @Frank Apisa & myself are likely so similar that for all intents and purposes they are identical - or at least they are kissing cousins. Yet, if you look back through this discussion you'll see that Frank Apisa & I had a very long side discussion about what Frank meant when he was using the word "god(s)". It took us a long time to get on the same page (more or less) and even now we disagree on some nuances.

So if two people who are philosophically close to one another can have difficulty communicating, I can only imagine how hard it must be for you to understand what I am saying - since it would require you to restructure your thinking.

The fact that after I have been repeating the same thing over & over - and yet you ask me what I am talking about? That illustrates as well as anything just how difficult this task is that I have assigned myself.

Unlike many others on this forum, I do not think you are a stupid person. It is clear that you are reasonably well read and articulate.
[/Meta-conversation]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So with all that, I will attempt to take a different approach for a while. Let's talk about these words "true/truth" & "false/falsehood".

<Side-discussion>
When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. If you are a witness in a court of law and you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Basically you are saying that the words coming out of your mouth will - as accurastely as you are capable of - describe facts/events in the real/physical world that we live in.

A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not. This is basically the Correspondence Theory of Truth.

In order for a sentence to have truth value it must describe a potential fact.

The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located at the time the statement is made

But - and here's a key thought I'm trying to communicate - It is possible to construct sentences that - while grammatically correct - have no semantic meaning.

Quadruplicity drinks procrastination.
Colorless green dreams sleep furiously.
The moon was a ghostly galleon
The unambiguous zebra promoted antipathy.
Etc

We all immediately recognize that these sentences are composed of words which have clear common use definitions, yet we all immediately recognize that under the clear common use definitions of the words these are either poetic in nature and/or nonsense sentences.

So now the question is - are such sentences true or false? To my knowledge there are two schools of thought on this topic.

One school of thought basically says (and stealing a Star Trek reference here) "Dammit Jim, quadruplicity does not drink procrastination. That sentence is false"

The other school of thought says that you cannot assign a truth value to such utterances.

I go with that second school of thinking. You cannot assign a truth value to nonsense (or poetic or religious) sentences.
</Side-discussion>

- - - - - - - - - - -

And now we loop back to the same thing I have been repeating over and over.

Words have meanings/usages.

Under your usage/definition of the word "God" and under the standard usage/definition of the word "exists"? The sentence "God exists" is a nonsense (or poetic) sentence.

Can you come up with a formulation under which this sentence can take a truth value - so we can communicate? I think that is an impossible task.

But instead I will give you an easier task. Forget about all us blindly ignorant agnostics/atheists/ignostics/etc.

Perhaps you can come up with a different usage/definition of the words "true" & "false" and "exists" under which two people of different religions can hold a religious conversation and agree on what they are talking about. Just as in science there is the scientific method to further our knowledge - maybe there is a "religious method" under which people of different faiths could find a common language/method to further religious beliefs.

That would be an historic achievement. Go for it!

I am offering you and 3017 the opportunity to give coherent explanation of how you can meaningfully talk about or assign truth values to statements about words that do not point to anything real.

I appreciate why people become religious. It gives people a sense of belonging - to both a community as well as to something bigger than themselves. It provides people with a source of comfort. It provides like minded people with a support network of other like minded people. It gives people structure and "meaning" to their lives (whatever that means).

I will not argue with this - I see it first hand in my friends & relatives - people that I love dearly. I am not trying to talk you out of your faith. Faith is mysterious and unfathomable. Of course so are many other things in life - love, art, etc.

I realize that what I'm about to say next will sound disparaging - maybe there's a way to say this in a less personally critical manner but that is beyond my skills - so I apologize in advance for making disparaging comments.

For some reason, your religion & faith are not enough for you - your are not content with living your life according to the tenets of your beliefs. You feel the need to give some sort of logical reasoning, some additional support structures, to buttress up your faith. Notice that these are all poetic notions here.

I took Philosophy 101 & 102 in college, so I am familiar with the broad outlines of the history of philosophical thought. Do I recall the details of Aquinas' Summa Theologica. No. And I don't need to, because Ignosticism has resolved all these issues - albeit it not in a way that you approve of.

I'll use a poetic metaphor here- Ignosticism unties the historical Gordian Knot of all discussions about "God"

All religious talk is outside any possible rules of logic that can be constructed - religious talk is a form of poetry. You can use metaphor, simile, etc - but once you invoke the supernatural you have positioned yourself outside of any logical reasoning.

I realize that asking you to give a clear definition of "God exists" is asking the impossible of you. In our conversations I have been trying - as gently as I can - to nudge you in the right direction, but you keep veering off topic into notions of "objectivity" and "truth". These are important philosophical topics but they are unrelated to "God exists".

You have erected internal mental walls that block you from being able to comprehend that "God exists" is an incoherent concept.

For the record I will repeat my response to 180 Proof above.

the standard definition of "God" (and I capitalized here) involves some notion of a supernatural spiritual realm. Supernatural means it is NOT part of nature - it does not physically exist. That is the key differentiator. And - as both Frank and I have pointed out - the word "existence" means existence in the natural physical world. — EricH

Now if you want to take Frank's definition of "god(s)" - the word "god(s)"is a placeholder for some hypothetical totally natural phenomena - then you are inside the boundaries of a philosophical discussion - you can have fun hypothesizing the "nature" of this hypothetical natural phenomena.

But once you invoke the supernatural? You are outside the metaphorical boundaries of logical discussion.

By saying "God exists"? You are saying there is something (the supernatural component/property of "God") that does not physically exist and yet it physically exists. And once you assert that? You are breaking the Law of Noncontradiction.

The penalty for breaking The Law of Noncontradiction is an indefinite stay in the metaphorical Philosophy Jail :smirk:

But not all is lost. You may have the key to get out. Can you can think of some new way of making coherent sense of "Nonexistent-God exists"? Is there some new way to express this thought in such a way that it can be analyzed for correctness/truth? Alternatively, perhaps you can figure out how the words "true" & "false" can be used when discussing "God's Supernatural Realm"?

Note that I bold faced "new way" - I did this to stress yet again that all existing attempts have failed. You need to come up with something new.

If you could do any of those things you would become world famous. Go for it!

You "deity types" categories split things up on what "God does or does not do". That does not clarify what the sentence "God exists" means.

Frank defines "god)s" as hypothetical real entities that are part of the natural order of things. that - at least can hypothetically - can be scientifically observed, measured, etc. That definition allows you to construct coherent sentences.

As we have seen from my discussions with 3017, the standard definition of "God" (and I capitalized here) involves some notion of a supernatural spiritual realm. Supernatural means it is NOT part of nature - it does not physically exist. That is the key differentiator. And - as both Frank and I have pointed out - the word "existence" means existence in the natural physical world.

And so, what do you think transcends Objectivity? — 3017amen

I have no problems with your definition of the term objectivity (allthough for some weird reason you insist on capitalizing it). There are countless discussions about objectivity on this forum. If you want to engage someone in a deeper conversation regarding objectivity (or Objectivity as you put in) I suggest you join in on one of those discussions - or open your own if none of them suit you.

But "transcends Objectivity"? Transcends is a religious/poetic concept. So you asked me a poetic question and I gave you a poetic answer.

But if you want to engage in a philosophical discussion about the sentence "God exists" you first must give a coherent explanation of what this sentence means.

Words have meanings/usages.

The concept of God is both natural and super-natural. — 3017amen

So we're agreed that there is some supernatural aspect to your concept of "God". Next you need to define the word "exists". Then you need to explain how these two words form a coherent sentence.

What transcends Objectivity? — 3017amen

The ephemeral beauty of transcendence,
Will last beyond eternity.
It will rise from the grave of uncertainty
To grow to the heights of the one and only Objectivity.
Nay! In it's all knowing indefinable one and only Truth,
It will last forever!

This might make pretty good lyrics to a hymn, no?

You still have not answered the question.

Is there some supernatural aspect of your "God". — EricH

If it doesn't make sense in this case, why not? — Srap Tasmaner

I'm repeating myself, but I'll try again. When I use the words "truth" or "true" I am using them in the same sense as used in a court of law. A sentence is true if and only if it describes a fact/event. A sentence is false if it describes an fact/event that could have happened but did not.

The cat is on the mat. This sentence is either true or false depending on where the cat happens to be physically located.

The cat undermined indecisiveness Under the standard/common'/dictionary definitions of the words, this sentence is neither true nor false since it does not assert anything that could be a fact/event.

A sentence has to make a potentially factual assertion in order to take a truth value.

This sentence is false. <-- This sentence just to the left does not make a factual assertion. It does not take a truth value.
The cat is on the mat. <-- This sentence just to the left makes a factual assertion. It is either ture or false.

I hope this helps I don't know if I can make it any clearer.