NKBJ
721

Egads...you've also shown yourself why your reasoning is defective?

Never woulda thunk it. — Frank Apisa


By your own logic you can't "prove" my reasoning is defective. — NKBJ

Really?

And let's hear your case for that.

You may be right...although I doubt it.

If you are, I will acknowledge it.

NKBJ
720

I've shown you why your reasoning is defective, but you apparently want to insist — Frank Apisa — NKBJ

Egads...you've also shown yourself why your reasoning is defective?

Never woulda thunk it.

tim wood
2.1k

It being likely we live within an infinite universe, — Anthony


Please make clear your understanding of "infinite." Too many people use the term without really knowing what it means. For example, we don't live in an infinite universe. — tim wood

Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...

...and neither do you, Tim.

NKBJ
719

The fact that you can make a thing work for one thing...does not mean it works universally. — Frank Apisa


If I can do it for one thing proves it's possible to be done and so there's no reason not to apply it to gods. At least, you haven't supplied one aside from loose and unsubstantiated claims of illogic.

Just saying "this is illogical" doesn't make it so. — NKBJ

Actually, I said what you proposed made sense...

...it just that logic has to be disposed of for that to be the case.

I've shown you why your reasoning is defective, but you apparently want to insist.

S
9k
↪Frank Apisa
Haha. Alright, calm down, bruv. There's no need to shout. I probably got you mixed up with Devans99 because you both have light green avatars and incessantly repeat yourselves. — S

Okay.

I was over the top with the response.

I apologize.

The thing I am attempting to communicate is that every individual I have ever met or know of...who uses the word "atheist" as part of a descriptor...

...either asserts that no gods exist...

...or expresses a "belief" that no gods exist...

...or expresses an opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than that at least one does.

The reason that has significance is because many people insist that individuals such as myself...are atheists by virtue solely of "a lack of 'belief' in any gods."

I am saying that "atheist" has more to it.

I most assuredly do not assert there are no gods; I most assuredly never express a "belief" that no gods exist; and I most assuredly am not of the opinion that it is more probable that no gods exist than the reverse.

SethRy
87
↪Frank Apisa
↪I like sushi
↪VagabondSpectre


Now, after we have established the problem. I would like to address something that was left unanswered.

A middle section of two extremely opposite aspects is inevitable to surface into a discussion by consequential considerations. Evaluating proposed dispositions of each aspect, it is inevitable that people would want the established problem to be resolved by another aspect that's just: moderate, common, the exact middle. For example, atheism and theism = agnosticism. Determinism and free-will = compatibilism. Would that middle section, which is inherently not any different from an ism, be a problem as well? — SethRy

Perhaps some people suggest a middle point.

I do not.

On the question, "Do no gods exist...or does at least one god exist?"...

...I simply acknowledge that I do not know.

I do not set up a continuum and pretend I can determine probability on it.

Maureen
13
↪Frank Apisa
"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."

^Correct me if am wrong... — Maureen

You are wrong.

... but it sounds like you are just admitting that you don't know whether or not God exists. So is there a reason why you can't just admit this without an explanation? Keep in mind that if I had written this post and I had simply said "nobody will admit that they don't know if God exists," this would sound like I was just making an assumption that nobody knows if God exists without anything to base it on. Therefore I had to explain that there may be every reason to believe that God does not exist, but that God may still exist even in spite of this, so therefore nobody knows if God does or does not exist. Otherwise it wold sound like I was just saying that nobody knows if God exists just because I wanted to believe this, not because there is an actual legitimate reason why nobody knows this like the reason that I explained.

I do not speak of "God" whatever or whomever you mean by that.

I speak of the existence of gods...or the non-existence of gods.

Either no gods exist...or at least one god exists.

I do not know which it is...and I am adult enough to simply acknowledge that I do not.

NKBJ
718

All that "believing" nonsense. You just cannot call your blind guesses...blind guesses. You have to call them "believing."

You ought to figure out why you do that.

Anyway...you do make sense...providing, of course, that you logic out the window. — Frank Apisa


Again, thanks for agreeing that I make sense!

You don't really provide an argument or anuthing here except trying to say I'm illogical. But I'll still give you an example of how you can know something doesn't exist:

You know how many hands you have. It's probably two, barring special circumstances. You know you don't have three hands. You can search up and down your body and not find a third hand. You have zero proof of a third hand. But you do have a lot of lack of evidence in favor of a third hand. You're perfectly justified in claiming you KNOW you have two hands and no third.

Anyone who tells you (or me) it's illogical to know you don't have a third hand has very simply lost touch with reality. — NKBJ

The fact that you can make a thing work for one thing...does not mean it works universally.

In any case, there is no problem with you making a blind guess that no gods exist.

NKBJ
718

what you are saying makes sense — Frank Apisa


Good! — NKBJ

Only if you disregard logic, though. You must have missed that part.

Devans99
1.2k

Ah, okay, so you've changed your stance. You've scrapped the 50/50 thing — S


I think the question 'is there a God?' is not a 50/50 proposition.

But the question 'was the universe created?' is a 50/50 proposition. — Devans99

50/50 70/30 60/40...is all nothing but guesswork on both questions.

I have no idea if there are any gods...I have no idea if the universe was "created"...and I am adult enough to simply acknowledge that.

Some people just cannot do that.

S
9k

Correct...which is why I would not make it.

I merely say that I do not know. — Frank Apisa


Ah, okay, so you've changed your stance. You've scrapped the 50/50 thing. :up:

(By the way, I would strongly warn you against spamming the forum. If you keep that up, I predict you'll end up being banned). — S

I HAVE NEVER SAID 50/50...EVER. HERE OR ANYWHERE ELSE.

Never...ever.

You got that?

I do not spam...nor do I flamebait. So take your warnings and store them where the sun will not get to them.

I agree.

What happens when one uses descriptors...is that the meaning of the descriptor becomes the main topic of the discussion.

Atheist, agnostic, conservative, liberal...are those kinds of words.

Better not to use them...and instead to describe the position.

S
9k

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself. — Frank Apisa


With regard to God, I haven't seen any reasonable argument for making any assessment on probability whatsoever. And 50/50 is a probability assessment. — S

Correct...which is why I would not make it.

I merely say that I do not know.

Here it is again:

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.

NKBJ
711
↪Frank Apisa


When you come back:
Knowledge is defined as "justified, true belief." I believe there are no gods. It's justified for me to claim there are no gods. And if there are no gods then my belief is true as well.

I might be wrong. It's always possible to be wrong. But I neither believe that I am wrong, nor would I be justified in believing myself to be wrong. So I am fully justified in claiming to know that there are no gods.

Until there is any evidence for gods (or any of the mysterious things you're nebulously pointing to that "might" exist), thus providing any justification whatsoever for the other side, I am correct in claiming to know there are no gods.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or in this case, non-existent until proven otherwise. — NKBJ

All that "believing" nonsense. You just cannot call your blind guesses...blind guesses. You have to call them "believing."

You ought to figure out why you do that.

Anyway...you do make sense...providing, of course, that you logic out the window.

NKBJ
711

And, if you do not care about logic...it makes sense. — Frank Apisa


:roll:

Well, you go off to Princeton and make sure that you watch out for those goblins and chimera and vampires you don't know don't exist on your way! — NKBJ

As I said...if you do not care about logic...what you are saying makes sense.

NKBJ
709
↪Frank Apisa


I'm saying I'm very much justified in saying it doesn't exist given the lack of evidence that it does. — NKBJ

Fine. That is allowed.

And, if you do not care about logic...it makes sense.

There are lots of things for which there is a lack of evidence...but that may exist.

Same thing goes for gods.

Anyway...wife and I are off to Princeton for dinner. See you folk tomorrow.

Okay.

I do not know if a sun-circling teapot exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect a sun-circling teapot CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of a sun-circling teapot is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that a sun-circling teapot MUST EXIST...that sun-circling teapots 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.

Seems fine to me.

Are you saying it is impossible for a sun-circling teapot to exist...or that a sun-circling teapot has to exist?

The beatings will continue until moral improves.

SophistiCat
722

You are confusing being agnostic with being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The difference is that someone who is purely agnostic tends to take a neutral stand regarding whether or not God exists, because they do not want to take either side of the argument when they don't know either way. — Maureen


The original meaning of agnostic - a term coined by Henry "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley - is precisely as you say: someone whose position is that they don't know (as opposed to gnostics who do). Of course, Huxley had a lot more to say on the subject than just repeating his thesis over and over and disparaging anyone who might disagree as stubborn, stupid or dishonest. — SophistiCat

Correct.

Actually Thomas Huxley, among other things, wanted to distinguish himself from the theists and atheists...who seemed to be saying "I know there is a GOD" or "I know there are no gods"...or who were expressing a "belief" in one or the other direction.

Are we headed towards a full circle on this line of reasoning? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nope.

Just stating something I see as obvious.

2 + 2 + 4 in base ten. I do not have to do any guessing about that.

If you saw something that you could positively identify as "a GOD"...you would not have to do any guessing about it. If you had to guess...then you have not seen something that you could positively identify as "a GOD."

Devans99
1.2k

I asked if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. — Frank Apisa


The answer is 'yes, probably'. Not 'I don't know' because we have just discussed inductive evidence in favour of the proposition. — Devans99

That is as absurd as the answer, "No, probably."

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself.

But, I can see that you are not what I supposed you were.

It takes a good deal more ethical wherewithal to acknowledge an "I do not know" than you apparently possess.

No problem. I will continue to comment.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Terrapin...it is my opinion that the ONLY place libertarianism can lead...is to chaos and anarchy. — Frank Apisa


So, for example, libertarians would have governments with public police forces, court systems, etc. How would that lead to an anarchy? — Terrapin Station

Because have public police forces and court systems is not enough for society and civilization to function.

Libertarianism leads to more libertarianism...which is to say that demands for more personal freedom leads to more and greater demands for more and greater personal freedom.

It leads to anarchy and chaos.

As I've mentioned...there are places on planet Earth right now where personal freedom is almost without restraint. Libertarians do not move there. It is a concept that only sounds good to people moaning and groaning about government.

We, the governed, are the government. If anything, today we need more, not less.

Devans99
1.2k

Where do we go from there? What are the implications of that? What is the point of you insisting that the universe cannot be infinite? — Frank Apisa


- It is a step in the road towards a better overall understanding of the universe. Cosmologists have models that are infinite in space or time. If we can eliminate these models, then the cosmologists can concentrate on the models that are possible. — Devans99

Then guess the universe is infinite...or guess that it is finite.

How does that give any movement toward understanding?

Finer minds than are available here are working on problems that may one day get us closer...although I doubt we will be appreciable closer than we are right now.

- It is a step towards understanding the nature of infinity (it does not exist).

Stop that nonsense. It doesn't look good on you at all.

ArguingWAristotleTiff
3.4k
If someone can point to "God" and I can see him/her, I am willing to entertain believing again. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you could see a god...you would not have to guess...or "believe" as you put it.

Devans99
1.2k

Okay...so you agree..."I do not know" is the answer — Frank Apisa


No: I think the answer is that there probably are aliens.

Probability is how we judge the merit of inductive truth, how we differentiate between weak and strong inductive truth. This is a more refined approach than guessing (but if you take a guess, probably your subconscious uses statistics anyway so there is no escaping probability). — Devans99

Devans...what is it with you?

I did not ask if there are "aliens."

I asked if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

I have now repeated that 4 or 5 times...and you still avoid it by answering something else.

What is the problem?

The answer to my question is obvious. The ONLY logical answer is, "I do not know."

Why not give it?

S
9k
↪Frank Apisa
I didn't have something to say to you, I had something to say about you. You're so predictable that I already know to a degree of exactitude how you'll respond, so it seemed kind of pointless directing it to you. — S

Oh, my...you know exactly how I'd respond...and you did not want that response.

Grow some balls.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
We all have a set of assumptions or axioms about the real world we work to and that are mainly inductivity derived. Any inductive truth is prone to a certain margin of error. So I was wondering what your margin of error was?

I'm not dismissive of your questions... sorry if I missed any. — Devans99

You were dismissive of my question which I will paraphrase here:

Let's assume that you are correct...that the universe is not infinite...and in fact is a creation.

Where do we go from there? What are the implications of that? What is the point of you insisting that the universe cannot be infinite?

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
We would never know if there was sentient life in a nearby system - they are just too distant for us to be able to pick up artificial EMR.

We have a sample size of one solar system that says solar systems come with sentient life. It's dangerous to rely on a small sample size I know, but that is all the information we have.

So I feel a gambling man, if he had to make a bet, would bet on aliens. — Devans99

Okay...so you agree..."I do not know" is the answer.

Why can you not just say that?

Do you feel you would be making an unwarranted concession to me...or what?

christian2017
53
↪Frank Apisa


"I would just like to point out that Einstein, Sagan, Feynman and many other scientists identified as agnostics rather than atheists...and those three actually got angry when people called them atheists. "

I do agree with that in that there is an enormous difference between an atheist and an agnostic. — christian2017

Thank you, Christian.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
99.999% certainty of the finding. It's a sort of gold standard for empirical evidence.

My point was at what threshold do you admit inductive evidence into the set of assumptions you hold about the real world? — Devans99

What are you talking about?

And why are you doing it in a thread that asserts "space cannot be infinite" when you are so dismissive of me asking questions that are tangential to the thread topic?

— S

If you have something to say to me...try to grow the balls to actually say it to me.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I feel it is likely that there is life in nearby systems.

'The age of the Earth is about 4.54 billion years; the earliest undisputed evidence of life on Earth dates from at least 3.5 billion years ago. There is evidence that life began much earlier.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earliest_known_life_forms

So evolution did not take long to get up and running here. I'd expect similar results on similar planets elsewhere. — Devans99

IS THERE SENTIENT LIFE ON ANY PLANET CIRCLING THE NEAREST 25 STARS TO SOL?

Any answer except, "I do not know"...is absolute nonsense.

Your bar movement from "nearest 25 stars to Sol"...to "nearby systems"...and changing "sentient life" to "life" is beneath someone of your intelligence, Devans.

christian2017
51
↪Devans99


I agree with that statement. I lost the quote but you said something to the effect that modern cosmologists are very often athiests.

I'm not going to say what religion Isaac Newton was but he did have a religion and what alot of people don't realize is that much of modern technology can be built using nothing more than physics principles that were discovered in the 19th (1800s) century or even just using Newtonian physics. The point i'm trying to make is people over estimate the ability of alot of modern scientists to solve all the world's problems. I believe science is great and the healthy person of belief will embrace science but that being said we shouldn't just bend over backwards to listen to modern scientists. — christian2017

I would just like to point out that Einstein, Sagan, Feynman and many other scientists identified as agnostics rather than atheists...and those three actually got angry when people called them atheists.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I am finding your don't know / can't know attitude to most questions a little defeatist. — Devans99

You are free to do that.

The very last thing I am, however, is a "defeatest."

I will argue a point that I consider significant until my fingers are bloody from typing...and then some.

I think you should place more weight in inductive reasoning; it is this, rather than deductive reasoning, that guides us though our daily lives. — Devans

You are certainly free to think that...although that is a bit out-of-line.

If CERN published an article claiming detection of a new particle at five nines certainty, what is your attitude? Do you adopt a working assumption that the particle exists? Or do you continue to assume it is unknown whether the particle exists?

If scientists come up with information that looks valid...I accept it the way a scientist would. Valid until shown to be wrong.

What is "five nines?"

Under that logic why don't we just sit around on this forum and discuss our favorite type of icecream or what we think is the best color. — christian2017

If you want to discuss those things...fine with me. I'll offer my favorites.

But the necessity to do that does not derive from my position...and I have no idea of why you think that.

I believe the belief that objective truth exists is paramount to having a stable society. — Christian

Interesting opinion. Could be right...could be dead wrong.

We can discuss your opinions...and the opinions of others instead of ice cream.

I do not believe it is arragant to say that objective truth exists but i will say it is very hard to come by. — Christian

I do not "believe" it either...but then again, I do not do "believing."

If you are saying however, that you believe it is not arrogant to say that objective truth exists...I disagree.

The wording structure "I do not believe..." has to be used carefully in a discussion in a philosophy forum.

Sounds right on the button to me.

Speculation...supposition...and opinions about the implications of the speculations and suppositions.

Excellent post.

Devans99
1.1k

In any case...the nonsense you posted above does not impact on my question...which talks about the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...not the universe.

By the way...to the best of our knowledge...no life exists except on planet Earth...not even in our system...which has billions of bodies circling the sun. — Frank Apisa


Even in our best instruments, large eco-planets appear as mere specks, so there is no way we are going to be able to detect life on them.

Earth is the only thing big enough to support an atmosphere within the the habitable zone so you would not expect life in the rest of the solar system. — Devans99

What is the point of your post?

If you are saying that the only logical response to the question is: I do not know....

...great. We are I agreement.

I feel this same way about the god thing.

How about you?

NKBJ
707

Then either stop the nonsense about me not making sense...or be on your way. Because if you show me a lack of respect...I WILL return the favor. — Frank Apisa


I said your post wasn't making sense. I didn't attack you as a person.

Okay...they are in the process. When they answer my question about sentient life on any of the planets circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...get back to me. — Frank Apisa


They still have a meteorite and soil samples and the existence of all of life on earth and you got nothin. So the ball is still in your court: where is a single shred of anything that makes God even a tiny bit more likely than Russell's teapot? — NKBJ

Are you actually asking me to support that?????????????????

Here is my position, which I have posted a dozen times at least:

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.

Now...if you are asking me to defend that, I will do my best.

Terrapin Station
8.2k
↪Frank Apisa


If you're not talking about anything named God then what the hell are we even talking about?

"Let's start a thread using this word, but then say that we're not talking about anything using this word." How stupid is that? — Terrapin Station

I do not know. You tell me about stupid.

In any case...I am not talking about any particular god. You apparently are, since you refer to this "something" named God.

I ask again: Are you asserting that no gods exist...or that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does?