tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa None so blind.... In sum you've told us what you can "see." An in result we've learned what you cannot or will not see. Nothing left here. — tim wood

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa ↪3017amen

Idiocy does love company! — 180 Proof

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa You're right, Frank. We need to pay more attention:
I see no reason whatsoever
— Frank Apisa — tim wood

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa wtf :lol: — 180 Proof

180 Proof
1.5k
↪tim wood :up:

p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.
— 3017amen
Incoherent gibberish. 'Transcends existence' denotes (1) separate from existence, (2) non-existence or does not exist; if 'necessarily transcends existence', then necessarily separate from existence, that is, does not exist - cannot exist.

Did I get that right ?
Oh, 3017, you passed the audition for Frank Apisa's idiot wingman a long time ago. :clap: :lol: — 180 Proof

tim wood
4.8k
So...go consult with a logician at a local university.
— Frank Apisa
Where do you think
II-2, camestres
— tim wood
comes from?
You've played yourself the fool, nor it be denied you've done a good and unreversible job of it. — tim wood

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Coward. Run along now . — 180 Proof

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa By all means, Prof. Apisa, provide correction - show me the syllogistic error of ways. "Do it. YOU CANNOT DO IT." :sweat: — 180 Proof

3017amen
2.1k
p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is impossible to exist.

p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.

c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
— 180 Proof

180, welcome to the party! Here's what you've suggested:

p1. I suspect that whatever necessarily transcends existence is possible to exist.

p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.

p3. Therefore, I have reason to suspect it is possible for a god to exist.

Did I get that right ?

↪Frank Apisa — 3017amen

180 Proof
1.5k
Put your supposed reason into a syllogism with the conclusion being:

Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.
— Frank Apisa
p1. I suspect that whatever necessariily transcends existence is impossible to exist.

p2. I suspect a god necessarily transcends existence.

c. Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.

:smirk:

Do it.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.
Done.

Again.

(You're welcome!) — 180 Proof

3017amen
2.1k
When you are in a hole, Tim...don't ask for a sharper shovel.Ask for a rope or a ladder.
— Frank Apisa

LOL, I know. It seems as though he put himself in a precarious and/or somewhat untenable position :snicker: . — 3017amen

tim wood
4.8k
The one you gave is defective.
— Frank Apisa

It's correct. I'm either a liar or mistaken. It's up to you to show the mistake - or make the case for my lying. Do a little research; learn something. There was a clue just above the syllogism. And, keep in mind it is exactly what you asked for. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
I don't know what?
— Frank Apisa

What 3017 doesn't know. You share ignorance. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa The syllogism is correct, and is exactly what you asked for. That you neither recognize that nor understand it is not a good thing. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa It has to be said. You don't know, either. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪3017amen Amen, you do not know wtf you're talking about. No need to reply, because I won't. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa
— tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa

II-2, camestres

All materially existing things have existential predicates.
God has no existential predicates.
God is not a materially existing thing. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa What you said was "absolutely no reason to suspect." See: here:
Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.
— "Frank
I gave you reason, and reason to suspect. Not a blind guess. But you deny the plain English of the thing. I ask you, then, what exactly you imagine a reason to be. And you evade like a Republican running for office. What do you think (a) reason is? That's the question. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
You did not give me a reason.
— Frank Apisa
What is it, exactly, that you imagine (a) reason to be? — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
Okay, Tim, your blind guesses on this issue are very important to you. T
— Frank Apisa

You say there is "absolutely" no reason. I give you reason. You call that "a blind guess." That, Mr. Apisa, is crazy-making. I don't like crazy-making. In my experience crazy-making, being a species of lying, is at best mean-spirited and serves a hidden agenda. What is your agenda? — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
I get it. You blindly guess that there are no gods...
— Frank Apisa
Now you're being incoherent. You said:
absolutely no reason whatever.
— Frank Apisa
. I provide a reason. So much for your understanding and use of language.

I have in front of me a cup of coffee. Is God in there? Only if he is capable of concealing himself from every test - and I'll take that as a no. Is he in any cup of coffee? Hmm, seems not, Cup of tea? Glass of beer or wine? In anything? Not in anything? You get the idea.

But he might, you claim! Can't disprove, you argue! Well, yes, you can. By every test, no God. And the tests these days are uniquely thorough. You're in the position of a man relying on magic. Or who insists there are actual cookies in a cookie jar that never has, never will, and most importantly cannot by definition contain cookies.

But you can have all the God you want in belief and idea, and the more powerful for it. Why stuck on paltry existence? In any case, the burden shifts to you.

And if you rely on your notions, then all the other possibilities, including those I listed above, "exist" equally. Even infinite gods. How do you sort that out?

Just for clarity. I'm not arguing against supreme beings. At the moment I'm alone in my room. Is there a supreme being in my room? You bet, me! (Until my cat comes back.) But there is nothing supernatural about me or my being, and my existence is provable (yes?).

You're God-in-the-gaps. But the gaps are all too small. Just believe instead, that's where you'll find your only real God. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect?
— tim wood

Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?
— Frank Apisa

Sure. They do not seem to have any conceivable possible place - even as they are defined . Now. Those are reasons. And pretty good reasons. — tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect? — tim wood

How about my flying purple hippopotami? Btw, they're invisible, incomprehensible, unknowable. Of course you have no reason to suspect they cannot exist - or do you? — tim wood

↪Frank Apisa, if I'm understanding you right, the agnosticism you're on about isn't theism. Whatever 3017amen is on about apparently is. — jorndoe

jorndoe
999
@3017amen, I don't think atheism is in a business of coming up with ad hoc answers to anything, it's just open-ended anything-but theism.
You may harp on about others that don't share your belief, yet until you've justified it sufficiently there isn't anything to respond to here.
Not that it's about you or I, it's about theism. — jorndoe

EricH
170
↪Frank Apisa
(It would not make sense for a person to call him/herself an "atheist" but still think it is more probably that there is a GOD than that there are none..
— Frank Apisa

We're sort of in the same ballpark definition wise.

That said, this "either/or" aspect of your definition may need some adjustments. Suppose someone thinks it 49% probable that there is a God and 51% otherwise. By your definition this person is not an atheist, yes/no? If this person IS an atheist, then what is the percentage separating atheist & non-atheist?

Just my 2 cents. You could revise your definition so that if a person thinks there is a non zero probability of Gods, then that person is not an atheist.

BTW - I hope you see that this is partly tongue in cheek. . . — EricH

3017amen
2.1k
But, people who like to call themselves atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Theists and atheists both are "believers." Theists acknowledge that they are...and revel in it. Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.

Kind of amusing to watch...especially when you egg them on and see them squirm.
— Frank Apisa

Thanks, Amen.


Agreed. The tale-tale is indeed, when they get angry and resort to ad hominem. That's a sure sign of frustration about their lack of justification(S).

Kind of like 180. ↪180 Proof — 3017amen

180 Proof
1.5k
... atheists realize they are outclassed by agnostic arguments...and resort to that petty stuff.

Atheists pretend they are not...and have to live the lie.
— Frank Apisa
"Petty stuff" like these ad hominems. — 180 Proof

↪Frank Apisa As I've said quite a few times, I'm not interested in persuading you (or anyone), Frank, but to expose your (everyone's) misuderstandings, fallacies & nonsense / bullshit, and have a little fun (at your expense :razz: ) while I'm at it. Yeah, over your head is an understatement. :sweat: — 180 Proof

EricH
169
↪180 Proof
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: — EricH

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa Well if you are as intelligent as you think you are, then you will agree that 'if A = B and B = C, then A = C', right? :sweat:

So:

If Frank Apisa's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

If 180 Proof's g/G position = no g/G-beliefs,

and no g/G-beliefs = atheism (i.e. a-theos, without g/G),

Then Frank Apisa's g/G position = 180 Proof's g/G position;

Therefore both Frank Apisa's g/G position & 180 Proof's g/G position = atheism.

Capice, Signore? :smirk: — 180 Proof

180 Proof
1.5k
I am not in over my head...
— Frank Apisa
Well, in that case, here's a hanging softball:

Given, Frank, that you do not know whether or not "any gods" exist, which "gods" do you believe in (trust) or worship daily (i.e. hope will protect or "save" you)? — 180 Proof

Hint: I'd bet you answer the same as I do. :smirk:

Enai De A Lukal
180
↪Frank Apisa You are most assuredly in over your head here, and this latest post is only further proof of that- the burden of proof applies to anyone making assertions, such as those you made. And not only do you have the burden of proof for your claims, but epistemic justification as well- assertions such as you made require sufficient evidence in order to be justified, i.e. reasonable. Lacking sufficient evidence/argumentation, you are not only shirking your burden of proof in the context of this discussion board, but are adopting unreasonable beliefs- mere guesses. So, until you put on your big-boy pants and start taking things seriously, you can hang out in the kiddie pool all by your lonesome. — Enai De A Lukal

EricH
167
↪Frank Apisa 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 — EricH

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. — Eric

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. — Eric

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. — Eric

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

Enai De A Lukal
178
↪Frank Apisa
Easiest assertion to show as wrong.

All you have to do is give one syllogism that shows any of those things...and my assertion falls to ruin.

But you cannot.

So, I laugh at the people who suppose they can logically come to "there is a god" or who pretend they are being scientific and logical when they come to "there are no gods"...and enjoy the pretense for its humor value.

I thank you good folk for entertaining me.
You still didn't answer the question. Its a pretty straightforward one. You made a serious of assertions. I ask you, on what basis do you make these assertions? Evidently you make these assertions on the basis of nothing whatsoever, so they amount to blind guessing on your part. Amusing, in a pitiful sort of way. Clearly in over your head, even in the kiddie pool. :smile: — Enai De A Lukal

jorndoe
993
Don't think so, Jorn.
— Frank Apisa

Are you telling me what I was on about with my own comment...? Odd. — jorndoe

EricH
166
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. — EricH

EricH
165
↪Frank Apisa
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. — EricH