Janus
7.2k

We aren't in disagreement. — Frank Apisa


Then why are you continuing to disagree?
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Janus

I'm not. I'm saying we agree.

You seem confused.

Sounds to me that if I asserted that 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten...you would disagree in some way...albeit subtle.

That gives me too much power.

Ease back a bit.

Janus
7.2k
↪Frank Apisa
Of course it is logically and epistemologically possible that there are sentient beings on other planets. But if the conditions for the advent of sentient beings were extremely stringent to the degree that only Earth out of the whole vast universe provided just those conditions, then it would not be physically possible that sentient beings could arise and exist on other planets.

Now that only Earth could provide such conditions seems very unlikely, but is itself not impossible, from a logical and epistemological perspective, although it too may be impossible from an ontological perspective. The point is, we just don't know.

You're testing my patience and I had decided to stop responding to your nonsensical unargued assertions, so stop being a fuckwit and asking me to concede a point when it has not been demonstrated to be incorrect. You don't even seem to have understood what I have been saying, much less to have refuted it. — Janus

Well...that was a rather jerk-off way of handling that.

We aren't in disagreement.

You acknowledge that any of those things are possible...based mostly on the fact that they have not been established as impossible.

That is what I have been saying.

You have been raving on about bullshit that really does not impact on the veracity of what I said...even if you are logically correct in your non-rebuttal rebuttal...which I think you ae not.

Anyway...not sure why you are being such a dick, but it is something you ought really to deal with.

Oh...and you ought to sort out that mistake you are making about the reality/possibility...if it is a mistake. If instead it is just your way of refusing to acknowledge you are wrong...the problem for you magnifies.

Janus
7.2k
↪ernestm
Of course the notions of possibility exist only in discourse, and can be applied as they are relative to our knowledge within our models, but whether reality is such that what is ontologically possible and impossible is determined by natural laws that are completely independent of human knowledge, of their being known or not, is an entirely different question. What is possible or impossible could be determined by human consciousness if the universe were ideal, but we don't know whether that is so or not. — Janus

So what are you saying?

Are you actually implying that anything we humans cannot determine...CANNOT be classified as possible?

We do not know if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol. Absolutely no idea whatsoever.

But it is POSSIBLE there are sentient beings on one of those planets.

It also is POSSIBLE there are no sentient beings on any of them. In fact, it is POSSIBLE there are no life forms of any sort...down to the lowest single cell life...on any of those planets.

You are confusing "possible" with "what is."

For whatever reason you do not want to concede this point.

Bad sportsmanship in a philosophical discussion.

The place is a delight...especially compared with some of the forums out there. The moderators and contributors here are all doing a hell of a job. I cannot wait to get off the golf course to come here and see what's going down.

I know, I know...I bust balls way too much. Hey...at my age, that is one of the joys of life.

Now...the second part.

The title of this thread is: "What if one has no opinion on the existence of the soul?"

That excited me. It was using "opinion" rather than the all too often used, "believe."

Most of the time, threads like this are titled a variation of, "Do you BELIEVE in a soul?" (Which I consider horseshit.)

But asking people for their opinions (or guesses or estimates) on an issue like this...is worthwhile.

I do not make a guess...or offer an opinion. I, like the OP, prefer not to do so. I, unlike the OP, could not care less about a word to describe that preference.

BUT...when I read the first paragraph of the thread...the mood was switched from "what is your opinion" to "what is your 'belief" about this."

I was disappointed.

Go back. Read my comment. You will see that is what I was saying.

If you are saying you disagree that I was disappointed...then we have a problem

If you agree that I most likely was disappointed (from what I said)...then we have no problem.

I like sushi
783
↪Frank Apisa
The OP was more than the title. Explicitly the mention of being labelled an “agnostic” and not having an opinion is not to be concerned about said item. In the mind of the the person posing the question of “agnostic?” they are mistaken.

I made the point, made by a number of other people over time, that an atheist doesn’t believe in a “deity” and/or “afterlife”. You don’t have to have an opinion NOT to belief in something other people know of. Clearly if I had no concept of a “cat” I wouldn’t believe in a cat. The scale of believability comes with comprehension.

“People,” myself at least, started talking response to the OP not merely the title. If you think to say “I don’t have an opinion about war,” our opinion is stated in that utterance. That is your opinion about ‘war’ is that you don’t care to address it NOT that you don’t understand what war is.

If the person says “I have no opinion about the existence of the soul” they are either questioning the point of addressing what ‘existence’ means or ‘soul’ - or perhaps ‘belief’?

Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.

My bad. I thought you did.


Apparently not because I was being generous in my reading of this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.


I’ll try again. Maybe you mean the “idea of the soul” is impossible? You’ll have to give an example of what is or isn’t a “reasonable definition” ... I am not saying ‘ideas’ are impossible, but I would argue that it is more than possible to believe you have a ‘reasonable definition’ when you don’t. We’ve all been there at some point in our lives where we realise a certain understanding of some given concept we’ve been carry around was actually rather facile.

Bear with me. Doing my best here! If the vitriol helps keep spitting it out too (genuinely no problem there) — I like sushi

I really hoped we could stick with just one thing. But...to accommodate you, I will reply to one holf of this here...and take the other half to a second responding post.

You seem to be having more trouble than you should with with my comment:

"Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible."

But that essentially is a tautology.

I am saying that if a thing is not IMPOSSIBLE...by definition, it is POSSIBLE.


So unless you are saying that the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE...by definition it is possible.

What could possibly be your problem with that?

(Allow me this, and I am not being a wise-ass here: Is English your first language or not?

I like sushi
782
↪Frank Apisa
Picking an argument? What are you asking me to refute? You don’t appear to have strung a single coherent thought together.

I asked repeatedly what the term “soul” means to you and you evaded, and will continue to do so no doubt?

Anyway, can you explain this:

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.


Which basically says the possibility of the impossible is possible? I’m not quite sure what you term as “reasonable” given you don’t seem inclined to hold to, or express, any particular view on anything. — I like sushi

Oh, shit. You do not know how to read with comprehension.

My bad. I thought you did.

Maybe we could discuss TV shows.

I can think of a great many things that are impossible. An example would be that it is impossible for something to be both possible and impossible at the sane time. Generally speaking it is illogical to live by the view that because something is possible we should adhere to it; especially if you say everything is possible, which would mean you’d somehow try to adhere to contradictory claims - which is ironically an impossibility.

Any five year old can think of things that are impossible. I named several in earlier posts.

That has nothing to do with whether a "soul" is or is not possible.

You truly do not understand how to argue coherently.

How about TV programs?

See what I mean? I certainly have no idea what you’re trying to say. I am not being argumentative, I’m simply intrigued by the staunch evasion and what it is you think I’m missing? It is possible my view of what you’re saying is wrong - which is no big deal - or that what you’re saying makes no sense, which should concern you more than me I’d say.

Here we can agree COMPLETELY.

You do not have any idea of what I am saying (not trying to say)...because you either have your mind closed or you are not bright enough to discuss this issue.

What were you hoping from the thread? What is your point, or the point you were hoping for? Can you express it so we can start afresh here or elsewhere?

Okay...let's take it piece by piece. Here is the first salient point I made...you tell me what your objections are to it. LETS STICK TO THIS.

The title of this thread is, "What if one has no opinion on the existence of the soul? "

I noted that after the title...instead of talking about "opinions"...people made a change and started talking about "beliefs."

Are you saying I am wrong about the title...or about the changes I observed before I made my posting?

I like sushi
781
↪Frank Apisa
Maybe I’m missing SOMETHING or maybe you are.

I’m not into evasive wordplay. The bottomline is you don’t care to outline what you’re talking about, but insist it is “something”. Like I’ve already stated wwhsnsusuus is also POSSIBLE according to how you use language. I don’t use language in that way.

I get that you appear to treading water. Why? If you make a claim that something is possible fair enough. My question is whether or not “soul” is something anymore than ygghjyff is something? If both are “something” then both are “possible” according to your line of reasoning.

Where have I gone wrong?

It looks very much like you’re trying to entice me down an epistemic rabbit hole. Not interested. — I like sushi

I am not trying to entice you anywhere.

We all have an idea of what a "soul" is.

Use any notion you choose...

...and unless you are telling me that particular one is IMPOSSIBLE...

...I am saying IT IS POSSIBLE.

I will say that same thing for every particular definition of "soul" you give until you run out of new ones.

I'm not treading any water. I am posting something that I think cannot be logically refuted...which is the reason you seem to be picking an argument rather than actually challenging what I am saying.

Unless you are saying the notion of "soul" is IMPOSSIBLE under any reasonable definition of "soul"...

...then it IS possible.

Mww
662

I do not know...is more than an opinion. — Frank Apisa


While this is certainly correct, the OP asked about nothing more than the absence of opinion. — Mww

You are correct.

And my answer would be to disregard the use of a word or descriptor for the position...

...and simply state the position.

I just do not have an opinion or a guess is valid.

My statement about my personal "agnosticism" uses that (I prefer not to use the descriptor agnostic)::

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods 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 like sushi
780
↪Frank Apisa
I least I made an effort to define what I was talking about. To be an atheist is not to believe in, and/or consider the thought of, a deity and/or an afterlife as particularly noteworthy.

Deity means some omnipotent conscious being overarching all reality - ergo an incomprehensible concept (of no use other than negatively). An “afterlife” would be against what we commonly call “life” and would not be, as some frame it, “a life after life” (which is nothing more than wordplay). As for some continuation of consciousness once I’m dead? Seems like the most redundant question there is given that I’ll find out sooner or later (or not at all). I’m certainly not going to live my life according to some unfounded belief in some form of ‘ascension’ because it seems to me a way of saying ‘this isn’t good enough for me and/or I’m better than this life’ which I find delusional, deranged or possibly simply egotistical leading one to live their lives as a vacuous event.

As for “soul” ... I have nothing to say unless someone cares to define it beyond “y’know, a ‘soul’, like when you die your mind continues!” In which case, see above for “afterlife”.

Basically if you cannot define what you’re calling “possible” or “impossible” then what the hell does that mean? Nothing at all. This is because it is like me saying Holding up purple duck in the yerrerish of dubble, easterly of wicksin is POSSIBLE! It doesn’t mean anything.

This is always the problem. That is not to say some people haven’t thought through what they mean by the terms “soul” and “god” it just appears they take it for granted, quite often, that everyone should understand what they mean without any serious, in depth explication.

So, what do you mean when you say “soul” bring possible? Do you know? — I like sushi

I do not know what a "soul" is...nor do I give a rat's ass.

It is SOMETHING.

And unless you are saying that SOMETHING is impossible...

...it is POSSIBLE. By definition...that SOMETHING is possible.

Sorry you do not get that. Perhaps in Philosophy 102, though.

I like sushi
779
↪Frank Apisa
You disregard the “Whatever it is?” — I like sushi

I didn't disregard it...I mentioned it.

It matters not what it is for the purposes of what I said about "it."

ASIDE: I'm not nuts about some sushi, but California rolls (barely qualify as sushi) I am nuts about. My wife and I go to a Chinese buffet...and I spend a majority of my time at the sushi bar...nigiri, ahi.

I like sushi
777
↪Frank Apisa
I answered the OP’s question precisely.

If you want something else what is it? They said they weren’t “agnostic” because that is an opinion and that they have no opinion about the concept “god” or an “afterlife” - as for “soul” the crack in the door is saying “I cannot know” to which I would say “Cannot know what?”

If they simply don’t care for this then we’re in the field of atheism - as in not being interested in these kinds if questions.

If you have something you wish share about the term “soul” go ahead. I doubt the OP would be upset. — I like sushi

In your case, I seriously question your specific definition of "atheism."

Atheism means so many things it is virtually useless as a descriptor...but to suggest it means, "I do not really care" is taking it further away from useful than most other descriptions.

As far as "I cannot know" or "It cannot be known"...that is a step too far for me. I seldom use a descriptor, but when I do, I use "agnostic." I have always argued that "agnostic" really should never mean "that a god exists is unknowable." It at least is POSSIBLE for one to know.

— Mww

I do not know...is more than an opinion.

It is the unvarnished truth...without attaching a guess.

In any case, why in the world would anyone doubt the POSSIBILITY of its existence?

Do you know of some reason to consider "the soul" (whatever it is) to be an impossibility?

If not...then it is possible. (We both know it is POSSIBLE.)

Mww
660
↪ernestm


I would agree. Granting the conception of soul doesn’t require an opinion concerning the possibility of its existence. That would be a separate, additional, cognition. — Mww

It would also be unnecessary.

Why in the world would anyone doubt the POSSIBILITY of its existence.

Of course it is possible. If one does not grant that...one is essentially saying it is impossible.

I like the title question of this thread...using "opinion." I had high hopes for it. But it, and the responses, quickly devolved into more of the "believe" and "belief" bullshit.

The questions are, "Do you "believe" (in) X...?"...

...when in a rigorous philosophical discussion the question should almost always be phrased, "Is your guess about X..."

Figure it out, People.

It is an important concept.

Grok it...run with it.

Janus
7.1k

You are intelligent enough to see this. Why are you refusing to see it? — Frank Apisa


I've tried to show you the differences between what is logically possible and impossible, what is possible and impossible as far as we know and what may or may not be possible, ontologically speaking.

In the case of the first we can say that we know something is impossible if it defies laws of the excluded middle or non-contradiction. These kinds of things are impossible by definition, and anything else is logically possible.

In the case of the second, is included pretty much everything else. We know that what we observe to be actual is possible, obviously. And on the other side, we may have very good reasons to believe that something is impossible, but we can never prove that so it remains open as to whether it really is impossible.

Speaking purely logically this openness means that it is possible, as you have been asserting and I have agreed with that. Something may indeed be known to be logically possible and hence it is possible that it is also ontologically possible, but we don't know that, and can't know that for sure until it is observed to be actual.

Now, if you think there is something wrong with my reasoning regarding all this, then address that and explain what you think is wrong. But don't just keep coming back with repetitions of capitalized insistence about the MEANING OF THE WORDS. I have already acknowledged that meaning of the words has determinative logical and epistemological provenance. But the meaning of the words has no determinative ontological provenance; in the ontological domain what is is what is, and what is impossible is impossible, regardless of whether or not we know, or even could know, it. — Janus

No need to dispute you in any way at this point.

You agree with me. Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

We are in agreement.

As for a discussion of what "is"...and what "is not" in the REALITY of existence...as Casey Stengel might say, "Include me out."

Janus
7.1k

Note that I am not saying that we know that such a planet is actually impossible; the point is that we don't know that such a planet is actually possible either. So, it is only so far as we know that such a thing might be possible. — Janus

It is not as far as we know, but regardless if we know.
Our knowledge as to the aforementioned example, neither gives or takes away from its possibility. — Shamshir


You're ignoring the fact that something might be, just on account of the way things are, impossible even though we could never know that with absolute certainty. Rebirth, to use the example of this thread, might be impossible due to the nature of the Cosmos. But take careful note, I am not saying that rebirth is logically impossible, it obviously is not since it involves no contradiction; I am saying that what is logically possible may have absolutely no bearing on what is actually possible. I am also not saying that rebirth is impossible just that it might be.

That something might be impossible does not imply that it must be possible, but rather that, just as it might be impossible, it also might be possible. The "might be" refers only epistemologically, not ontologically. Ontologically speaking something is either possible or it is not, just as is the case with logical possibility and impossibility. but the domains of logical possibility and impossibility and ontological possibility and impossibility do not necessarily coincide; they may or they may not, we simply cannot know. — Janus

The problem is that a thing that might be impossible...IS POSSIBLE.

That is the meaning of the word.

Until it is actually established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

You are intelligent enough to see this. Why are you refusing to see it?

Devans99
1.8k

BUT IT HAPPENS. — Frank Apisa


Yes but the question is why did it happen? Has a gigantic fluke come off? Or was it not a fluke at all? Its quite clear to me that the second is vastly more likely. — Devans99

You do tend to suppose your guesses about things are correct.

Whether the universe happened as the result of some design...or just happened...

...the chances of it happening are the same.

There honestly is no "more likely."

The chances of Devans reading the exact words he is reading right at this moment at exactly this instant of time...

...are probably about a quadrillion, quadrillion to one against.

Almost everything he does today...have those same odds against it happening at exactly the moment it happens.

BUT IT HAPPENS.

The chances of an shuffled deck of cards ending up in the array it arrives at after every shuffle...are millions to one against (high enough so that any shuffled deck will probably not repeat itself in billions of shuffles)...but IT HAPPENS.

We are here...the universe is here.

Whatever the odds are...we defied them and arrived here.

Relativist
569

What this thread needs is more psychobabble.

https://thegrayzone.com/2019/05/07/gabor-mate-russiagate-interview-transcript/ — unenlightened

FWIW: Anyone who "expected" Mueller to develop a prosecutable case for criminal conspiracy by Trump was misguided. On the other hand:

- anyone who suggests there was a "Russian Hoax" is ignoring the facts; there was a great deal of suspicious behavior that showed an investigation was warranted:
-- numerous interactions between members of the campaign and Russians
-- Trump's lying to the public about his (and his campaign's) interactions with Russia
-- Trump's instructing subordinates to mislead, lie and fabricate evidence
-- Trump's activities that (per Mueller) may have constituted obstruction

- Trump tried to impede the investigation and have MAY have actually succeeded in this (read about his dangling of a pardon to Manafort, who subsequently lied and may have continued to not be forthcoming).

- It is reasonable to consider whether or not Trump's behavior constitutes criminal obstruction of justice. This is not "moving the goalposts" (as Trump apologists assert) because there were no goals regarding "getting Trump on criminal conspiracy with Russia" (regardless of whether or not there were individuals who hoped for, or expected that). It is absurd to suggest that an investigator of possible criminality should ignore other criminal behavior that is uncovered during the course of the investigation. — Relativist

We certainly agree on this, Relativist!

Janus
7.1k
↪Frank Apisa
OK, I tried to open your mind to a more nuanced way of thinking about it, but you have proved to be the most locked-in interlocutor I have ever encountered, so much so that you feel the need to capitalize your words of insistence, so I'll leave you to it. — Janus

Sounds like a plan.

Devans99
1.7k

Consider a lottery on which a billion people have exactly one ticket. A ticket is drawn, and there is a winner. His chances of winning were 1 in a billion, and yet he won. Does his low probability of winning imply the lottery was rigged? — Relativist


We know lotteries tend not to be rigged. We do not know if universes are 'rigged'. It could be that universes are not rigged and we just got lucky, but thats very unlikely. — Devans99

There is ABSOLUTELY NO WAY to know or estimate what you are considering to be "unlikely."

That estimate is a result of your bias of wanting the universe to be a creation.

You really have to get away from that if you want to be logical.

TheGreatArcanum
20
doesn’t it seem absurd to presuppose that an effect can exist without a cause considering the fact that all effects are conceptually contained (I..e. subsets) within their causes? to say that an effect exists without a cause is to say that, in essence, the effect is causeless and is therefore not contained within a higher set and is therefore identical to the set of all sets. — TheGreatArcanum

It is not absurd to do so.

But what is absurd is to arbitrarily describe something (like existence and the universe) as an effect...just for the purposes of supposing a cause...

...and then calling that "cause" GOD...

...and giving the GOD characteristics like being offended if I spank the monkey.

Don't ya think?

Relativist
559

"I 'believe' aliens from other planets live among us" does not sound as good to my ear as, "It is my guess that aliens from other planets live among us"...or "it is my opinion (estimate) that..." — Frank Apisa

Fine- call them opinions. There are still 2 important considerations that need consideration; how strongly you hold this opinion (which is a psychological state), and how strongly supported is your opinion (ideally, this entails an attempt to be objective). It seems more reasonable to have strong opinions when the support is stronger.

What I'm trying to get at is that some opinions are "better" than others - i.e. it is more reasonable to hold them. Further, it is more reasonable and rational (and more productive) to strive to hold opinions that are well supported. — Relativist

I absolutely agree that some opinions (and some guesses or estimates) ARE better than others. But why not just call them opinions or guesses or estimates.

The point is that when we come to the "I 'believe' (in) God" kind of thing...we actually introduce a factor of, "We must all respect the 'beliefs' of others"...AND INSTALL IT INTO LAWS we must all follow.

The "belief" in these cases are blind guesses about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Everyone has a right to his/her guesses...but to change the word "guess" into "belief" and afford it a status above the guess status it deserves...does a disservice to humanity.

And, not incidentally, is often the cause of wars and killing and terrorist activities.

So...I fight against it.

It seems a rather lonely fight on this site, but an enjoyable one nonetheless.

Sorry my fight causes so much consternation for so many.

Janus
7.1k
↪Frank Apisa
Why do you keep repeating the same nonsense over and over instead of at least attempting to tender some reason for why I should believe you are right and I am wrong? — Janus

If I said 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten...and you said..."Oh, no it doesn't"...do you actually think I would do more than just repeat it?

Either a thing is ESTABLISHED as impossible...or (until it is established as impossible) IT IS POSSIBLE.

That is what the what the wording means.

All I can do is repeat it.

But, if you insist on something more: Open your goddam mind and see the truth.

Okay?

So, regarding the cartoon example I gave: are you saying that we can prove such a thing is impossible, or are you saying that it is actually, as opposed to merely logically, possible that such a planet exists? If the latter, then how could you know that? — Janus

YES, Janus...I am saying that until you actually establish that it is impossible (which I doubt anyone could actually do)...IT IS POSSIBLE.

That is a given.

Note that I am not saying that we know that such a planet is actually impossible; the point is that we don't know that such a planet is actually possible either. So, it is only so far as we know that such a thing might be possible.

Well...until you do establish that it is impossible...

...IT IS POSSIBLE.

That is what the word means.

Janus
7.1k
↪Shamshir
↪Frank Apisa
You are still failing to recognize the distinction between something being possible as far as we know, and something being actually possible.

For example as far as we know it is possible that there is a planet where all the cartoon characters ever created on Earth reside, and that they are psychic beings who projected images of themselves into the minds of their "creators' on Earth. But given the nature of nature such a thing might not be physically possible at all. — Janus

Janus...

...until a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

That is what the language means with those two words.

Anything that has not been established as IMPOSSIBLE...until established as impossible...

...IS POSSIBLE.

Relativist
556

Like everyone else, I will continue to use unjustified guesswork in my everyday life. — Pattern-chaser

I'm referring to every day life. Despite there being guesswork to our choices, we still endeavor to to make the best possible guesses. Imagine if you were to refrain from making your everyday choices simply because you could neither prove it optimal, nor compute the probability of your preferred outcome. That is not tenable. — Relativist

Everyone should make the best guesses or "preferences" possible...especially in what you refer to as "every day life."

But even in grander schemes...that is a good idea.

Obviously, I prefer that people call their guesses and preferences...guesses and/or preferences.

Some people say, "I 'believe in' democracy."

I just think it would be better to state that thought in a variation of "preference." "I prefer to live in country where democracy and freedom prevail...rather than in one where dictatorship is boss" just sounds better to me.

"I 'believe' aliens from other planets live among us" does not sound as good to my ear as, "It is my guess that aliens from other planets live among us"...or "it is my opinion (estimate) that..."

Janus
7.1k
↪Frank Apisa
No, something may well be impossible even thought we could never prove that. So, it doesn't necessarily follow that if we cannot prove it is impossible, then it must be possible. — Janus

You are wrong.

If a thing is not established as impossible...IT IS AT LEAST POSSIBLE. I am not asking you to prove it is impossible. I am saying that until it is established as impossible...it is possible. That has to do with the meaning of words...not with any facts about existence.

But apparently you are going to insist...so insist.

Devans99
1.7k
↪Frank Apisa
Yes I do; there are about 20 constants in physics that all have to be about where they are now for life to exist. The chances of that happening by chance are astronomically small.

I not saying that the universe is definitely fine tuned for life; merely it is incredibly likely that the universe is fine tuned for life. — Devans99

And I am NOT saying that the universe is fine tuned for life...rather than simply a manifestation of what is.

I AM saying that there is no way to calculate the odds either way.

And that even if the odds were 1,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 to one against it being mere chance....

...if it happened that way, you would be here saying the odds are too great.

Put another way...a more truthful way...

...there may be gods involved in existence or there may be no gods involved.

Thanks.

Devans99
1.7k
That is the weak anthropic principle (WAP) you have given.

The problem with the WAP is that it says that the universe must support life, it does not say why the universe supports life:

[1] By random coincident we got lucky and a billion to 1 shot came off
[2] Universe was fine tuned to support life

[2] is much more likely than [1]. So IMO the WAP does not put a dent in the fine tuning argument. Neither does the strong anthropic principle (SAP). — Devans99

You have no idea if [2] is more likely than [1]. You are merely expressing a personal prejudice. If the odds were a gazillion to 1...and it happened, here we would be. And you would be claiming the odds against it were too large for it to have happened.

I like sushi
746
↪Pattern-chaser


Does every effect have a cause, or is it possible for causeless effects to happen?


This question is irrelevant. If there is an ‘effect’ that isn’t ‘caused’ then it isn’t an ‘effect’ - — I like sushi

Nicely expressed.

It is like calling the universe "The creation" and then arguing that there must be a creator.

Wayfarer
7.2k
As far as evidence is concerned - evidence concerning 'rebirth' or 'previous lives' is about the only kind of post-death evidence that is possible to obtain, because evidence of other realms of existence, even if they're real, is obviously not obtainable, save for that presented by first-person accounts of NDE's.

But in the case of rebirth, there is a source of evidence, namely, children who claim to remember their previous lives. This has been researched by interviews and cross-checking of such claims, which has produced fairly consistent body of data.

Typically these cases comprise apparent recollections by children who, soon after they learn to speak, begin to talk of their past-life identities and experiences. Often they manifest as the child rejecting the family they've been born into, i.e. 'you're not my family, my family name is [x] and I live in [y]' and so forth. These apparent memories gradually fade and are usually lost altogether by the age of 8. They are also much more likely (but not exclusively) to be found in cultural traditions that are accepting of previous lives (such as Indian and Chinese cultures).

The reason this presents the opportunity for empirical analysis is that such purported previous life memories can then be validated against documentary and other records, which is what the researchers of this field of study have done. The general kinds of trends are as follows:

* talk about alleged past-life memories begins at the age of 2-5 and ceases at the age of 5-8;
* alleged memories are narrated repeatedly and with strong emphasis;
* social roles and professional occupations of the alleged previous personality are acted out in play;
* mention of the cause of (often violent) death in previous life;
* exhibition of emotional conflict due to ambiguity of family or gender;
* display of unlearned skills (including foreign language skills) as well as propositional knowledge (of names, places, persons, etc.) not plausibly acquired in the present life;
* unusual behaviour and idiosyncratic traits corresponding to the previous personality such as phobias, aversions, obsessions, and penchants;
* birthmarks, differing in etiological features such as size, shape and colour from conventional birthmarks and other relevant birth anomalies, sometimes significantly corresponding to wounds involved in the death of the previous personality.

Caveat: the matter is subject to strong cultural taboos in Western society, for obvious reasons - such beliefs having been declared anathema in the early Christian church and also challenging current scientific understanding of the nature of mind.

As one of the best-known researchers in the field noted 'in the West, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they must be made up." In the East, people ask me, "why do you study these stories? Everyone knows they happen all the time". — Wayfarer

How many of those supposed "studies" have been done...and by how many researchers?

I find it unusual in the example link...that the kids remembered previous lives right there in their neighborhoods...where their supposed remembrances were able to be "checked and verified."

Janus
7.1k

There is no such thing as a "presumed possibility."

Unless a thing is established as impossible...by definition, it is possible. — Frank Apisa


If something is not established as impossible (an establishment which would seem to itself be impossible except in the case of logical contradictions) it is, by definition, not possible, but possible merely logically and as far as we know. For something to be considered to be possible (on the basis that it is possible as far as we know) just is to presume that it is possible.

None of this means that we have any reason to be of the opinion that it really is possible, much less actual. — Janus

Some things we can establish as impossible.

We can establish that a triangle cannot have 5 angles. The moment a figure has more than (or less than) three angles...it no longer is a triangle.

We can establish that a sphere cannot have any angles. The moment is has any angles it no longer is a sphere.

But whatever is not established as impossible is, by definition...POSSIBLE.

There is no need of it being presumed...because unless it has been established as impossible...it simply IS possible.

It is a trivial thing...almost a tautology.

I do not understand the arguments against it.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


Belief is far more broad than belief statements about God. However, in the context of belief in God, your position seems fine to me. — creativesoul

Thank you, CS.

I agree that "belief" statements go very far beyond Gog/no god...but I decided about 20 years ago to avoid the "I believe" metric entirely...so that there was consistency in my considerations.

For certain, using "I believe I'll have another slice of the coconut cream pie" is no problem...as is "I believe he means to kill himself with that motorcycle racing" or even, "I believe the GIANTS are going to win the NFC East this year."

The refusal to use the expression is just an arbitrary decision of mine.

Glad to see my position was cleared up for you.

I actually agree with Relativeist on this.

The sense of what is being conveyed...the moral principle...is on the button.

A careful examination of the words would show that it is not true in a formal, grammatical standard.

By the way...keep in mind that the original thought did not use "people." It used "men."

Maureen
30

..I do not do "believing."

If that bothers you...deal with it.

You will never hear me say, "I 'believe' anything."

If you are asking me if I make guesses, estimates, suppositions, or the like...I do. But I always specify that I am guessing, estimating, supposing...

...I never hide what I am doing by saying, "I believe any of those things — Frank Apisa


^My problem with that statement is that ANYONE can make a "guess, estimate..." and use that as a safeguard to say they do not believe this or that, if they wish to do so. Nonetheless, having a guess is pretty much the same thing as a belief, as to say that "I'm making a guess that this happened or that so and so exists, because..." would in the grand scheme of things be the same as saying "I believe this happened because..." in that you are giving reasons in both cases. On the other hand, if you were to say "I'm making a guess that this happened," it would pretty much be a moot point unless you gave a reason why, since anyone can guess when given two binary options such as "this did or did not happen" or "this thing does or does not exist." Unless you give reasons for something, then it really does not matter if you say you guess, estimate, etc." something as opposed to saying you "believe" it, because the implication is the same regardless and varies only if you give reasons to support it. — Maureen

Maureen...what I am saying is that if I make a guess...I prefer to call it a guess rather than a "belief."

Normally this doesn't matter. But the issue being discussed here is about religion...about whether there is at least one god or if there are none.

There is NOTHING whatever wrong with making a guess in either direction.

But if that guess is couched in terms of a "belief"...there are consequences.

For some this doesn't matter. They want to say, "I believe (in) God"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is that there is a God."

Some want to say, "I believe there are no gods"...because they do not want to say, "My guess is there are no gods."

I prefer to be honest about it.

I honestly do not understand why you do not see my position as reasonable...or why you show antagonism toward me because of it.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


Have fun with that! — creativesoul

I am.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


I'm not asking you if you 'do believing' whatever that's supposed to mean. I'm asking you simple questions with yes/no answers. Why not just answer?

Okay? — creativesoul

Okay.

Yes or no.

creativesoul
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa


When you make a statement about something, do you believe that what you say is true? — creativesoul

Let me try this once again:

I do not do "believing."

Okay?