180 Proof
1.4k
↪180 Proof I wonder how many atheists began their doubt with the Brothers teaching them the Five Ways? Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea.
— Banno
For most ex-Catholic atheists, it seems, doubt began in grade school or early high school 'bible study' without or, for some, years before reading The Quinque viæ. Good parochial schooling (at least in America) has been a fairly effective inoculation against the catechistic disease. E.g. Ciceronianus the White & @Frank Apisa can attest to that. Close study of Biblical history, as well as its scriptural contents, or Church history "wasn't such a good idea". Not only Aquinas, but Luther et al too, share a lot of the blame or praise. — 180 Proof

Yeah, for me...except for the fact that mine lead to agnosticism rather than atheism. And it happened a bit later for me. I was about 21.

At age 20, I actually served Mass in St. Peter's Basilica in the Vatican. By age 21 - 22 I was agnostic...and have been ever since.

tim wood
4.7k
Never mind Pompeo, he just wants to be - and he cannot make up his mind which - Mussolini or Goering.

And language does not easily encompass him and his, Trump and the people of his administration. At the moment I'm torn between "infection" and "infestation." It is a mistake to think of them as people. — tim wood

Stephen Miller looks the part of Goebbels. As for Pompeo, either he learns to like lettuce and salads....or being the Goering of the administration is his only hope.

Michael
9k
I am "taken aback" by goddam near everything this administration does with regard to goddam near anything it encounters.
— Frank Apisa

I've heard that there are now unidentified federal officers in unmarked cars arresting protestors. — Michael

They are scum.

Never before have I ever felt embarrassed for my country.

I was rather taken aback with the focus on these rights. What about right to life and bodily integrity (eg. being free from bodily harm), freedom, discrimination, political assembly? To name 4 that I will always consider more important than private property or religious freedom.

Did the founding fathers really consider these two more important than "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness"?

It does explain the "fuck lives because the economy" reaction to the pandemic in the US. — Benkei

I am "taken aback" by goddam near everything this administration does with regard to goddam near anything it encounters.

This is THE worst administration in American history...and I hope it retains that spot for as long as the Republic lasts. I would hate to think that sometime in the future, we could ever elect someone worse to the Oval Office than Trump.

Our generations (there are several in existence right now) have only temporary custody of the Republic...and we could not be doing it more damage it we actually set out to damage it.

I'll be 84 in a couple of weeks...and I cannot tell you how disappointed I am to have witnessed what is happening. To go from the way the nation reacted during WWII...to what is happening today is beyond words.

The notion of ignoring unanswerable question as a philosophical stance is an absurdity. The main focus of philosophy since the time of the early Greek philosophers...is to speculate on unanswerable questions. That, for the most part, is what philosophers do.

Is there a GOD or are there no gods, for instance, is a philosophical question that has been bandied about in philosophical discussions from the very beginning...and IT IS UNANSWERABLE (other than "I do not know and cannot make a reasonable guess).

Do away with unanswerable questions...and you essentially do away with philosophy.

180 Proof
1.4k
American decline.

We choose to go to the Moon in this decade and do the other things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.
— A Real President (1962)
:fire:

Looks like by April, you know, in theory, when it gets a little warmer, it miraculously goes away ... Don’t forget, we have more cases than anyone in the world, but why? Because we do more testing. When you test, you have a case. When you test, you find something is wrong with people. If we didn’t do any testing, we would have very few cases ... Maybe it is overrated ... Testing is a double-edged sword. … So I said to my people, slow the testing down please.
— A Reality TV President (2020) — 180 Proof

:up: :up: :up:

After posting that comment, I thought: A bit harsh, Frank.

So...if the guy could explain what he was aiming at, he might be able to convince me he was on to something. But I'd need to speak with him.

Bill's personal "general philosophy" is more a bumper sticker than a philosophy. It has an intellectual sound, but I suspect most intelligent people would "reject" it.

I further suspect its "intellectual sound" was the reason it was created.

fishfry
1.5k
This type. But it seems our telescopes show us only stars and planets, no other type of galaxyes.
— Eugen

I was being a little tongue in cheek contemplating a galaxy made up of all the discarded technology of all the other galaxies. Of course galaxies by definition are made up of lots of stars, with some of those stars having planets. — fishfry

Actually, galaxies are made up of lots of dust...some of which turns into stars which then turn back into dust. And planets and such also.

Banno
8.5k
↪Frank Apisa Actually, I've done this myself - dropping balls one at a time, slowly, so that my students could see the curve build. — Banno

Suggestion for what might be a doctoral level experiment, B.

Mark a ball with a red dot...and drop THAT INDIVIDUAL ball each time with the red dot in the same position at release...keeping the drop effort as similar as possible...

...and see if the randomness occurs.

That one ball...skewed slightly as every ball must be...might favor one or two adjacent slots.

Just an idea. Or maybe one you could pawn off to a serious student to attempt and report.

The probability of one ball falling in any particular bin is given by the normal curve. — Banno

To your knowledge, Banno, has that ever been tested.

Lots of balls falling strike against each other and have different mass distributions to influence the fall...so the bell curve distribution is understandable.

But if one single ball...always the same ball...were carefully and systematically dropped, would it randomly create a bell curve...or will it favor one or two slots?

Just wondering.

I agree with what Pinprick had to say about your thesis.

jgill
645
Unless you can establish that it is impossible...of course it is possible
— Frank Apisa

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/logicalfallacies/Proving-Non-Existence — jgill

I know about shifting the burden of proof...and that was not the gist of my comment.

By definition...anything not established as IMPOSSIBLE...is, at very least, POSSIBLE.

This usually gets into a long discussion...and if you want to pursue it, I'll start another thread. I don't want to derail this one.

Unless you can establish that it is impossible...of course it is possible. Which, essentially, is what you are asking.

I asked you a reasonable question...and got an answer I thought to be questionable. So I asked about it.

In response you have indicated that you lied...and/or that you are insane.

Now, you are giving me a lecture on ethics and honor...in a post that shows neither on your part.

I have no idea of what your problem is, but I suggest we simply refrain from discussing this further.

Okay?

Daniel
119
↪Frank Apisa I do not think it would be ethical to take advantage of someone's desire to be free. — Daniel

You are free to think or not think whatever you want, Daniel.

A prisoner might think it to be an ethical bargain.

They should be free to think that.

Why not give them that opportunity? Both the prisoner and society would benefit.

Seems to me that if a criminal wants to earn time off his/her sentence by volunteering to test drugs or vaccines (or to help shorten the time for testing) it would be ethical on the part of the criminal, the government, and the medical community.

The question raised by Banno is a valid one...and troublesome. The only thing I can think of in mitigation, is that blacks and women appear to be shortchanged in medical research. If most of the experimenting is being done on blacks (I think that is overstating the case)...but if it is, they will gain the most benefit from the research.

tim wood
4.6k
What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa

Two possibilities: 1) He knows. And this is the entrance to a rabbit-hole. I, for example, would point out that by most definitions of "deity," he/they/it cannot in principle be known, nor any aspect of them. And where there is not the possibility of knowledge of a something, it's fair to say that something cannot in any ordinary sense exist, or "be." It may have a qualified "existence," but existence in that case would have to be defined.

2) Within the limitations of possible knowledge he may know. This allows for a being outside of all possible knowledge, but what sort of being would that be?

So it seems to devolve to two outcomes: 1) an agreement that a definition of terms is necessary, and the effort to define them, Or 2) Nyah-nyah yer momma wears combat boots.

And oddly enough, while one is what most folks want, two is what usually happens. — tim wood

Thank you, Tim.

Wheatley
1.1k
Let’s get back to the beginning.

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
— Frank Apisa
I don’t know what to believe. — Wheatley

Then why say you KNOW there are no deities?

Wheatley
1.1k
You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it.
— Frank Apisa
That’s not true because I didn’t agree to any of this. You asked me a question and I answered it. — Wheatley

YOU MADE AN ASSERTION. The assertion was that you KNOW there are no deities.

YOU decided to answer the question...and you decided to answer it the way you did.

If you can prove the assertion...do so. If you cannot (and considering this is a philosophical forum) you should withdraw it. That was not an order, it was a suggestion. It would be the honorable, ethical thing to do.

Wheatley
1.1k
YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley.
— Frank Apisa
It was only advice. — Wheatley

"Don’t get Wood involved..."...did not sound like advice. It sounded like an order. But I am willing to accept you meant it as advice.

Which I reject.

Wheatley
1.1k
I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do.
— Frank Apisa
There’s no obligation to prove anything. — Wheatley

You made an assertion in a philosophical forum thread. YOU do have an obligation to prove it.

Wheatley
1.1k
I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa

Don’t get Wood involved, I’m only trying something out. — Wheatley

YOU do not get to tell me what I should or should not do in my responses, Wheatley.

Try out whatever you want.

Wheatley
1.1k
You KNOW there are no deities?
— Frank Apisa

Prove that I don’t know. — Wheatley

I have not said you do not know. You have said that you do.

Prove that you do.

tim wood
4.6k
↪Frank Apisa Don't confuse belief with facts. They both have their respective value and significance. No doubt, for example, you believe your mother loved you. — tim wood

I am not confusing them, Tim. I am asking Wheatley about the difference.

What do you think of his response that he KNOWS there are no deities?

Wheatley
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa I know. — Wheatley

You KNOW there are no deities?

C'mon. This is a philosophy forum.

Wheatley
1.1k
Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?
— Frank Apisa
No such things as deities. — Wheatley

Are you saying you KNOW there are no such things as deities...or are you saying you "believe" there are no such things as deities?

If I’m reading this correctly, I’m getting the impression that many churches act as if the existence of God is certain and can be demonstrated. I remember kids telling me that I’m really dumb because I don’t believe there is a God. — Wheatley

Do you have a "belief" on the issue, Wheatley?

Do you "believe" there is no God...or no gods?

Not the most outrageous idea I've ever heard...although not fully baked. I could see asking for volunteers from individuals serving long sentences...with a reward commensurate with the degree of danger the person faces. (Certainly more than you proposed.)

The "volunteer" part has to be a must.

As for people erroneously convicted...life is not fair. If a "voluntary medical experiment" option were not available for those rightly convicted and those erroneously convicted...there would still be people both rightly and erroneously convicted serving sentences.

Yeah...not a horrible idea. Just needs a bit more baking.

I moved from Catholicism to agnosticism at a fairly early age...mid to late 20's. That was a major move. Still an Agnostic...and I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks.

I was a fairly conservative minded individual until about that time also...actually thought Joe McCarthy had the right idea about how to handle things. I've gone full reverse on American conservatism now...I have almost no respect for it at all.

Life on Earth may be a virus more deadly to the universe at large than the coronavirus is to humans.

The last thing that humans ought to be thinking of doing is spreading "humanity" into the universe...because that would be like purposefully "spreading" an infection.

First , let's get out shit in order...IF WE ARE ABLE.

Then we should think about propagating.

Benj96
154
I want to define something. I want to do it as accurately as possible. That is to say I want to define something truthfully - as it really is.
What criteria do I use?
a). Unanimity - The best definition is that which most people believe to be true. As in the case of "facts" and the existence if "monetary value"
b). Stability - The best definition is that which appears to be most consistent in its parameters through time. As in the case of "laws and constants of physics."
c). Equity - the best definition of something is the qualitative/ quantitative average/mean of the sum total of all definitions of said thing. - as in the case of probability and normal distributions.
d). Explanatory capacity - the best definition is that which provides the highest level of understanding and information regarding the thing being defined.
e). Demonstration - the best definition of something is that which is most experiential in nature and self- referencing: ie the act of defining is the definition ie. In the case of "Word" or "sdrawkcab" or "re-arragned lettesr".


It seems there are many ways to discern a good definition but is there a best way? And what role does the subject of definition play on how it ought to be defined? — Benj96

If there is ambiguity in a word's meaning...the individual using it ought to explain how the word is being used.

I am an agnostic (I explain that each time I argue)...and in almost every discussion with an atheist, eventually the comment, "How do you define GOD?" arises.

I often respond with a question of my own, that I acknowledge may sound smarmy, but is not intended that way--namely, "How do you define 'define.'"

That seems to be what you are doing here...or attempting to do.

If there is ambiguity...explain what you mean rather than use a word...like that word "believe" in a) above.

If a person wants to "believe" (guess) there is a GOD...and that guess brings the person comfort and contentment in some measure...why would that be an "inauthentic" path? Why would "believing" (guessing) there are no gods be "authentic?"

Why would guessing in either direction be more authentic than simply acknowledging that one does not know if there is a GOD (are gods) or if there are none...and that the probability of either direction cannot be determined?

Honestly...suggesting to either element that their guesses are "philosophical suicide" is more than just arrogant...it is absurd.

Eugen
221
Panpsychism states that consciousness is basically all around. Quarks have a very small degree of consciousness, ants larger and humans much larger. But we could also say that more complex organisms would be more conscious than we are.
But to be honest, I don't know if ''more consciouss'' even makes sense. — Eugen

Yeah...ya gotta wonder about that.

But some really fine minds once posited, "A more perfect Union..."...and that doesn't seem to make much sense either.

Enai De A Lukal
63
↪praxis

Sarcasm, that's really what you're going with? Lol oh dear. :grimace:

Running desperately short on excuses at this point, clearly. Guess that shouldn't be surprising. — Enai De A Lukal

AMEN!

He sounds like he was being sarcastic!

:lol:

What does Trump have to do finally to scare the sheep?

He plead guilty to save his son from the same fate, and his family from financial ruin, arguing that he had been coerced into it and that the government had withheld exculpatory evidence. — NOS4A2

You are absolutely correct, NOS. The trouble with these leftists is that they all want to disregard the part of the perjury laws that say that if you have a good reason for lying under oath, it is no longer perjury.

The major problem with any arguments for or against the existence of any gods is that none of them are truly logical.

It is impossible to come to the conclusion that "there is at least one god" OR that "there are no gods"...using logic. In fact, it is impossible to come to the conclusion that "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" OR "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...using logic.

The best anyone can do is to make a guess in either direction. One can do that most easily by flipping a coin.

Banno
8.2k
↪Frank Apisa I've re-read this with eyes that are less wearied, but still think it muddled.

Yes, i was thinking of omnipotent deities when I wrote the OP. But I don't see how Thor or The God Of Small Things would be useful as the answer to a philosophical conundrum.


Edit: actually, the God of Small Things might be an exception... — Banno

Okay, we may be at an impasse, Banno.

Perhaps it is that I do not accurately understand what you were trying to convey with the expression, “God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. Any question is given a sufficient reply by blaming god. Hence, philosophical discussion stops at god. Of corse, that does not imply that god is the correct answer.”

My position, which is that of an agnostic, is that a GOD or gods may exist. If so, that GOD or those gods may, indeed, impact on anything or everything.

Your position, it seemed to me, tended to eliminate the prospect of any gods (merely to eliminate them from consideration of "philosophical" considerations…which I considered an appropriate position to dispute.

Either I was wrong in how I was taking your remarks…or in some other way misunderstanding what you are suggesting with that thesis.

I’ll just follow along for a bit to see where this goes…and if my initial assumptions prove to be wrong, I’ll leave things be.

Now I think you're playing with me. Anyway, below is an excerpt from a more reputable philosophy resource:

To be red (or even to be an apple) it must already exist, as only existing things instantiate properties. (This principle—that existence is conceptually prior to predication—is rejected by Meinongians.)
— Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosiphy (SEP)

As only existing things instantiate properties translates as:

1. If properties are instantiated then something exists that instantiates those properties

What does "properties are instantiated" entail other than detectability through senses/instruments?

In other words, existence is based off of detectability. No detectability, no existence. — TheMadFool

Okay. Wow!

Very complicated way of answering my question to you.

You could just as easily said...YES.

Of course I disagree. There are fundamental flaws with that "definition" that I am sure you can see.

"Detectable through senses/instruments!"

But, since your answer to my question reduces to YES...I guess you mean HUMAN senses and HUMAN instruments.

Things that can be detected by non-humans (if such being exist) or detected by non-human instruments...do not exist?

To me that not only sounds unscientific...it also sounds profoundly unphilosophiical.

Thanks, Eric. I do not disagree with you...or with TMF for that matter.

I live life as it is for me...whether it is an persistent illusion (as Einstein suggested) or if it farce...which considering all the shit I've seen, it may well be.

I don't say ghosts or spirits or multi-dimensional beings exist...

...but I say they might. Gods may exist...which is one way of saying, "There may be no gods."

The REALITY of "all this" may be so much more complicated and astounding than any of us are able to suppose...even Philip Dick or Kurt Vonnegut.

Just talking and musing about what "might be" is fun...at least, for me, it is.