We seem to have dueling definitions here.

I could be wrong, but as I understand him Frank defines no g/G-beliefs as agnosticism not atheism. Per Frank's definition, atheism is an active denial/rejection of g/G-beliefs - which is distinct from simply having no opinion/belief one way or the other.

I.e., denial is a form of belief.

Of course the word belief is very slippery. . . :chin:

By the way, EricH...what do you say "atheist" means...and why do you say it? — Frank Apisa

I'm pretty sure that I am using something very close to your definition - someone who denies the existence of a god or gods.

I still have not communicated. I'll try one more time.

The point I am trying to make is that you - Frank Apisa - have committed the most mortal philosophical sin there is - namely you have contradicted yourself. Cue music from Psycho

Back here you criticized @DingoJones and others for re-defining the word "atheist" far beyond it's commonly accepted usage. You stated that you were absolutely not an atheist and - IMHO - correctly insisted that we stick with common usage.

However - in this conversation you are redefining the word "god" far beyond it's standard usage. Now perhaps you have changed your mind - and now think that it's OK in a philosophical discussion to redefine words for beyond their common usage.

But if that is the case, then you will have no grounds to object the next time someone says that you are some sort of atheist. I.e. - you will have no grounds to object based upon the fact that they have re-defined words. - you will have to come up with a new line of reasoning.

In your reply I expect (and hope) that you will address this inconsistency.

If you want to be "ignostic" on the question of whether gods exist or not...I respect that. — Frank Apisa

For clarity's sake I am going to sort of repeat myself - but I will use a different approach.

Here's the OP: What are your positions on the arguments for God?

And my answer:

1) Using Frank Apisa's definition?
I am agnostic.
2) Using Pantheist definition(s)?
I neither understand nor identify with Pantheism - at least based on my limited understanding. If there is sufficient overlap with some Pantheistic definition & Frank Apisa's definition then I would take a look.
3) Using the definition of the remaining ~7.5 billion people on this planet
I am ignostic.

About 6 months ago you started this discussion: About This Word Atheist

In this discussion you objected to folks who were attempting to re-define the word atheist to include agnostics - i.e. that agnosticism is a type of atheism.

I agreed with you - when words have clearly defined meanings that have been in use for hundreds of years, it is pointlessly confusing to re-define them to fit into some sort of analytical framework. Just come up with a new word.

Now perhaps I am not following you, but it seems like you are doing the same thing. You are re-defining the word god(s) and removing the supernatural aspect - but by doing this you are eliminating they single most defining aspect of the word god - namely that god(s) is/are supernatural in nature.

So I respectfully suggest that you come up with a new word to avoid this confusion. Here is my feeble attempt - I'm sure there are better:

UETPE: An acronym for Unknown Entities That Physically Exist. An UETPE is a hypothetical entity that physically exists and thus is potentially knowable/discoverable by some as of yet undiscovered tool/device/method. It is also possible that UETPE(s) are somehow involved in the creation of the universe as it currently exists.

Now we can re-formulate your algorithm:

I do not know if UETPEs exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect UETPEs CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of UETPEs is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that UETPEs MUST EXIST...that UETPEs are needed to explain existence;
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

I would agree with this. I am agnostic on the existence of UETPEs.

But when it comes to the “existence of god(s)” I am ignostic. The word god is incoherent and any attempts to analyze/discuss the “existence” of an incoherent word are pointless.

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural. — Frank Apisa

I could be missing something here, but your definition of the word "god" does not correspond with the definition used by pretty much every other human being on this planet.

Maybe some of the pantheists out here would agree with you - but not being a pantheist I can't speak for them.

I used to call myself agnostic, but it never felt quite right. When I stumbled across ignosticism it was like the proverbial light bulb going on. If someone asks me my religion I will say ignostic and take the time to explain it.

In some ways ignosticism is even more threatening to theists than atheism - it negates all the counter arguments that you cannot prove that God does not exist.

At this point i'm an ignostic. — substantivalism

As a fellow ignostic I appreciate that you're trying to engage with @3017amen, but I doubt you'll achieve much. These folks are locked into their positions, and by asking them to give clear definitions to the words "God" and "existence" you are basically asking them to abandon everything they believe.

human beings as highly cooperative, reciprocal and intuitively moral creatures — Banno

I wish I could agree with this. But then I look at today's headlines (or any history book for that matter) and find overwhelming evidence that this is not so.

It might have gotten lost in the shuffle, so I'll repeat my suggestions

First, get a hold of Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. Besides giving (in my opinion) one of the best explanations of Godel, it's a very entertaining read in of itself with all sorts of very cool insights.

Next, you might want to check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbtNQ7yzo9Y&feature=youtu.be

This explains the technique behind Godel in totally non-mathematical terms.

It is not easy to wrap your head around this. I sort of understand it, but still struggle with it.

I can recommend two sources which might help you.

First, get a hold of Godel, Escher and Bach by Douglas Hofstadter. it's a great read in of itself with all sorts of very cool insights.

Next, you might want to check this out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GbtNQ7yzo9Y&feature=youtu.be

The example here is analogous to Godel - well sort of.

what would empirical evidence for a transcendent being comprise? — Wayfarer

“Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence”

If a giant voice would emerge from nowhere saying:

"Hey humanity, it's God here! I know that some of you have doubted my existence, so just to make certain that everyone knows I'm real - for the next 24 hours I'm going to reverse the rotation of the earth".

And sure enough the next morning the sun rises in the west.

That - or something equivalent - would be sufficient empirical evidence. Of course it would be most helpful if the giant voice would also tell us the proper religion:

"Oh, and by the way? The Methodists have the correct religion. OK, either the Methodists or the Sunni Muslims. Either one is fine with me" :razz:

panpsychism has to move fast and come up with more well-defined theories, theorems, experiments, and some proofs. I personally see panpsychism being in its infancy and very different from what it will be in 30 years from now. — Eugen

I think it highly unlikely, but if the panpsychists can come up with some experiments & proof? That would be very cool.

But once you have theorems, experiments, and reproducible proof - then you are following the scientific method.

Thank you for the thoughtful & polite response. I looked up Philip Goff & I think I have a bit of a handle now on what you're saying. So first I will respond to your comments - and then I will attempt to give my own somewhat incoherent thoughts on the topic.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
Panpsychism in all of it's variants seems like a religion to me. Compared to most religions it seems relatively harmless - I can't see anyone going to war over it and/or threatening to kill people if they do not convert. And I can see how it might be an appealing option. But unless there is a way to test/verify these hypotheses it remains a religion of sorts. But if there were any way to verify these hypotheses - then at that point it would cease being a religion and would become - for want of a better term - scientific.

I can anticipate that your objection to this is that science is locked into a materialistic paradigm and thus is incapable of performing any such inquiries. If this is the case, then it is up to you and your fellow panpsychists to lead them in a new direction. How should we proceed to investigate these hypotheses? How should one attempt to verify that a rock has some form of consciousness?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -
So what do I think about all this?

To the best of our current knowledge, the universe is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles, forces, etc, etc. And yet somehow, atoms can organize in such a way as to become self aware.

Hey! Look at me! I'm made of atoms!

This is truly an extraordinary thing and the more you think about it the more mind boggling it gets. How can one account for this?

My short answer? Beats the heck outta me. . . :smile:

My longer answer . . .

Humankind has been around in it's current form for, say, 40 thousand years or so. It is only in the last 400 years that we have started to understand how the universe behaves. Our knowledge base is expanding every year - we are finding new facts about reality and our abilities to explore/measure are also increasing. We likely know as much about existence as an ant crossing a football field understands about the rules of the game. Maybe a bit more. If history is any guide, it is likely that much of what we know about the universe will prove to be only partly correct under certain conditions.

If we (mankind that is) can succeed in not destroying civilization, then perhaps 100s or 1000s or millions of years from now we will get to the bottom of things (that's a metaphor of course).

As such, we must be humble and acknowledge our limitations. We are all frail fallible human beings out here.

One possibility is that the existence of conscious beings is a manifestation of some underlying principal in nature - I believe the most common way of expressing this is "emergent property". Perhaps consciousness is somehow related to Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? It strikes me a fascinating that no computer program can detect an infinite loop in another computer program yet human beings can spot them.

Alternatively, Noam Chomsky has stated that - while there is a materialistic explanation for consciousness - we human beings will never uncover it because we cannot introspect ourselves.

Perhaps in the future science will come up with a machine that can truly transfer thoughts/feelings from one person to another. I can't rule it out.

Vulcan mind meld anyone? :chin:

Anyone else got any explanation that makes sense given the facts? — tim wood

Hanlon's Razor applies here.

they do not know WTF they're doing — tim wood

That is most likely the correct explanation

I'll try again. I get that you folks feel that materialism does not - and will never - offer an explanation of consciousness. But beyond that I'm not getting what your positions actually are - and please don't say it's obvious - or toss out words like "feeling" and "experience".

I am not rejecting your ideas out of hand. I am not criticizing you personally or attacking you for not being able to express your ideas clearly. These are difficult topics. What I am asking for is some reference. Is there some philosopher and/or some philosophical school of thought out there who you agree with?

Just for example, here is someone who talks about how Idealism explains consciousness. In this discussion he makes it clear that he does not agree with the Idealists but he gives a clear explanation of their thinking.

https://thepsychedelicscientist.com/2017/02/13/solving-the-hard-problem-with-idealism/

Please read this - it's a quick read - and get back. Does the author give a good explanation of your thoughts? if not, can you supply a link that gives a reasonably accurate summary of your position?

I'm pretty sure any professional philosopher would instantly know what Eugen meant. — bert1

I'm not a professional philosopher. :smile: In fact I'm not even an amateur philosopher - I'm just stumbling around in the dark trying to figure out what's going on.

I think I have sort of a vague sense of what @Eugen is saying, but I'm trying to get some clarity.

Ah - you're not a native speaker. That's OK. It is likely that we are not going to agree, but I would first like to have some understanding of your position.

To proove what? That a feeling is not the same thing as an atom? — Eugen

Perhaps I was not clear. Here is what I said:

At this point in time the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide me with some links, perhaps I can at least understand what you're getting at. — EricH

Given that you are not a native speaker - and that these concepts are very difficult to express even for someone who is fluent - I am asking you to provide me with some references that I can read that will help me understand what it is you are saying. As I responded to @bert1 - this is a philosophy forum so it would help me if you could proved some references that would position your ideas within some philosophical framework. E.g., some type of Idealism?

I would like to ask you something, but please be 100% sincere. Do you really believe that your feelings are exactly the same thing and nothing more than a certain movement of atoms yes/no? — Eugen

I would like to give you an sincere response - but I need to understand what you mean by "feelings" - it is a very vague word which has many different definitions.

If I'm following correctly, you seem to be saying that feelings are not mental processes - so I'm trying to figure out the word "feelings" (or experiences) means to you.

So to repeat myself - I hope you can provide me with some references - and I'm not looking for a dictionary definition of feelings.

I hope I'm being clear - and reasonable - in my requests.

Of course the expression is used, but this is a philosophy forum - so I am asking for some discussion of this concept within a philosophical framework. As you can see by your link, the only reference is in a reddit forum. There's no mention of this phrase in any of the standard sources for basic information about philosophy. Perhaps it is more commonly known under a different term?

I'm a reasonably intelligent person and I've been polite to you. I may or may not agree with your position - likely not, but you never know- I keep an open mind. But if you cannot explain yourself clearly to a reasonably intelligent person, then you're never going to convince anyone that your position is correct.

My "google-fu" is pretty good. I did a good faith effort to research the phrase "first person experience" and came up empty handed. That phrase does not appear as a topic on either Wikipedia or Britannica. At this point in time the burden of proof is on you. If you can provide me with some links, perhaps I can at least understand what you're getting at.

You haven't made this clear to me.

mental processes (moving of atoms inside your brain) i — Eugen

So a "mental process" is the moving of atoms inside your brain.

A punch in the face creates some atoms moving in certain way — Eugen

I assume here that the atoms referred to in this sentence are the same atoms you were talking about in the previous sentence. I.e., we're not talking about the atoms in your nose, or in the nerve paths leading to your brain.

Pain is an experience, which is produced by a movement of atoms, — Eugen

So is this the same movement of atoms that you were referring to in the previous 2 sentences or is it a different set of moving atoms? Either way, what do you mean by the word "experience"?

I did about a 5 minute search on the phrase "first person experience". Nothing in wikipedia, Britannica, Stanford, etc.

I tried googling "first person experience" and did not find anything useful in the standard philosophy sources.

Can you expand on this a bit - what do you mean by "first person experience" and "mental process" - and in what way(s) is a first person experience NOT a mental process?

Consciousness is NOT the mental processes, but how these mental states feel like. — Eugen

"How the mental states feel like" - IS a mental process, yes/no?

Harrumph! Metaphysics hogs all the attention on this forum.

What about meta-stamp-collecting? Meta-football? Meta-gardening? Meta-chess?

Don't these disciplines deserve the same analytical scrutiny?

read your Chomsky. — fishfry

Chomsky supports BLM. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s-0BmqyWJ30

I signed up for an account thinking I was going to start posting - then quickly realized I was in over my head and needed to figure out how I could fit in. It was a year before I posted by first response - and after two years I still have not done an OP. Maybe one of these years . . . :smile:

But absent those laws and institutions it becomes difficult to indict the system for racism. — NOS4A2

Let's start with an easy example. After WWII, black soldiers were systematically denied education & housing benefits, even tho the law itself was ostensibly neutral. The ability to purchase a house and/or get a college degree gave white soldiers significant financial & social advantages that they passed onto their children.

Most people would consider this to be an example of systemic racism. Do you agree or disagree?

Here is one of numerous articles you can find with a quick web search: https://www.history.com/news/gi-bill-black-wwii-veterans-benefits

Interesting. Can 1/9 be represented non-repeatedly in base 9 arithmetic - or some other base?

It looks to me like we're basically saying the same thing in different ways

the foundation of semantics is ostensive definitions i.e. all definitions can be traced back to a set of objects or a set phenomena that can be perceived directly. — TheMadFool

perhaps the way out of the definitional loop is somehow to point to reality — EricH

Ostensive definition
Hah! Was not familiar with that term. Hope I can remember that if I ever need it. :smile:

@TheMadFool

Not sure if there can be any resolution to your back & forth regarding definitions. You can take any word and define it - but that definition is composed of words - and those words must have definitions - etc etc etc. So all definitions are in some sense circular.

I don't have any clear way to get out of this loop. But ultimately you have to get away from your computer or smartphone and get something to eat, go to the bathroom, etc. And all the time you are doing these things you are breathing in & out, your heart is beating, etc.

So unless you believe that you are in some sort of Matrix world - or any of the numerous philosophical variants - you must act 'as if' there is something out there. What word do you use to refer to what is outside of you? Reality, the universe, existence, all that is the case, the totality of facts, etc?

In other words, perhaps the way out of the definitional loop is somehow to point to reality, the universe, existence, all that is the case, the totality of facts, etc?

Yes, there are numerous holes in this line of reasoning. . . .

Hey - haven't seen your stuff in a while. I enjoy your little endeavors - helps lighten the mood with all this back & forth that never gets anywhere.

Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question. — Frank Apisa

And how do we define the word "gods" and "reality" in such a way that the question makes any coherent sense?

Other folks on the forum have said this better than I - all religious talk is a form of poetry. Now I think that I appreciate a good poem as much as the next person. Poetry can be beautiful and it can inspire people to do great and/or terrible things. But the words "true" and "false" do not apply to a poem. We cannot subject a poem to the sort of "either this or that" analysis that you are attempting to do.

Anyway, as you can see, we're looping around here saying the same thing in different words. I'll give you last word here - if you want it that is . . . :smile:

Oh - and thank you for the kind words of praise.

"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists? — Frank Apisa

Indeed. Humanity has been around in it's present form for, let's say, 40K years. it's only in the last 400 years or so that we're beginning to grasp our place in the universe and our knowledge seems to be exponentially expanding. Likely we know as much about the nature of the universe/existence as an ant walking across a stadium field understands the rules of football. OK, maybe a bit more.

So we can hypothesize that there may be whole modalities (for want of a better word) of experience or existence (for want of better words) that we are not equipped for or ready to understand.

But in these hypothetical futures would there even be such a thing as sentences, grammar, semantics, etc? Would there be any way to even express the sentence "God exists"?

Of course there is no answer to this question - since this question is just as incoherent as the original sentence "God exists"

god(s) exists — Frank Apisa

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth value
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" (or gods)? I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence?

Going back to the two schools of thought I referenced earlier? You might say that of course fictional characters do not exist so this sentence is false - but to my way of thinking any sentence in the form "[some-non-existent-fictional-character] exists" is incoherent based on the definitions of the words.

I cannot make a blind guess about the sentence"God exists" any more than I can make a guess about "[n-leggedness] drinks procrastination". Does at least one [n-leggedness] drink procrastination? Do no [n-legednesses] drink procrastination? All are nonsense questions.

“Billy Pilgrim has come unstuck in time.”

From Slaughterhouse 5 by Kurt Vonnegut

They will never get to a hundred percent. — Gregory

That's hundred percent correct. I suggest avoiding getting on an airplane because the laws of physics could change and your plane could crash and tunnel into the center of the earth. Same thing about driving in a car - you could be going down the highway and the car could turn into a giant caterpillar and eat you. In fact, you could turn into a caterpillar before you finish reading this sentence.

You never know anything with 100% certainty.

Wha...? What was on the curriculum? — SophistiCat

Hard to re-collect - that was 50 years ago. For whatever reason, even tho I was a physics major, it was a liberal arts degree - I took Philosophy 101/2, World History, French Literature, Art History, etc.

Well, that's a crap answer and not even a good joke. — SophistiCat

It was funny at the time. Guess you had to be there . . . . . .

True story. Back in the 60s - that's the 1960s, not the 1860s - I was an under-grad Physics major. Thermodynamics was not on the undergrad curriculum. To compensate, the department had one of the professors give an optional lecture on the Laws of Thermodynamics.

At the end, during the Q&A period I asked how it was that the universe had such a low entropy value. The professor's response??

"When God created the universe he created the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

The whole class laughed.

Just for the record, I have no religious beliefs. And I also was - and still am - a very mediocre Physicist.

If Donald gets more apples than Joe, he's going to drive up to your house (or apartment) and dump a truckload of toxic waste in your front yard.

Then he going to takes everyone's apples away from them except for people he likes.

Again with the mental gymnastics. — StreetlightX

I do mental gymnastics every day - it's part of my exercise routine.