Pinprick
237
You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD.
— Frank Apisa

Ok. If you want to argue that God’s existence would not violate physics, then you would need to provide a definition of God that shows that to be true. Good luck. — Pinprick

You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics. You must mean the "physics" of which we are currently aware. (Even that would be a difficult thing to prove.)

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math.
— Frank Apisa

How do you define faith? To me it’s believing something without evidence/reason to do so. It must mean something different for you, unless you think we have no reason/evidence to believe in gravity, etc. — Pinprick

I'm willing to go with your definition. But supposing that science has answered questions like "Are there any gods? is an absurdity. If it did, all scientists would be atheists. People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics...acknowledging that it was an unknown.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist.
— Frank Apisa

Irrelevant. All things we have, or ever will, discover are physical. There’s no way we could ever discover God, if that’s what you’re implying. — Pinprick

Not irrelevant at all. Not by a long shot.

I do agree with you, sorta. My guess would be that we will never confirm that a GOD exists...and my guess would be that we will never confirm that no gods exist...never confirm that it is more likely one way or the other.

Just guesses. We humans are crafty, and may find a way to do it.

Thank you for sharing your guess about that.

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it.
— Frank Apisa

P1: Science has discovered physical facts about the universe that are up to this point inviolable.

P2: The existence of God would violate these facts, namely the fact that all real objects and forces are explainable in physical terms, but also causality/determinism.

C: Therefore it is more likely that no Gods exist. — Pinprick

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh.

I also have a question for you. If I drop a ball, which is more likely to happen? That it falls towards the Earth, or that it floats up towards the sky?

Towards the Earth.

I would also like you to explain your answer. — Pinprick

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand?

Benj96
99
This question is a bit along the matrix line. — Benj96

Sounds a bit more like "along the Ready Player One line.

I'll follow along.

Okay, maybe we can discuss some good movies we've enjoyed recently.

You start the thread. I promise I will visit and contribute.

jorndoe
876
Okay
— Frank Apisa

You didn't really address anything (just took a guess at what's in my head instead).

These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference
— jorndoe

... say, a definition.

Thus, your definition is exactly what any calculation (and much else) depends on, it's all we have to go on in the first place.

Define so that no calculation is feasible, then so be it. Define so that a calculation is feasible, then calculation it is. Define so that this-and-that, then deal with the implications thereof.

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
— Frank Apisa

Vagueness aside, can you include something that admits calculation?
Better still, some implications that we can go out and check tomorrow (verifications-falsifications)?
Otherwise you've just set things up so that calculation-verification-falsification can't be done in the first place. — jorndoe

Okay.

Perhaps we can meet in a discussion some time where we are more in tune.

I have found that some people are uncomfortable discussing this topic and do whatever they can to derail it or simply stop it on the tracks.

I have given a definition of what I mean by "god" when discussing the issue.

I have asserted that I have never had anyone give me a logical argument that arrives at any of these four conclusions:

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore there is at least one god.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

If you can present an argument, preferably in syllogistic form, that does, please do it. Otherwise, let's just hold off interaction until we find a topic which we can discuss.

He asked to be subpoenaed by the Senate...and would have testified under subpoena. They, cowardly, refused to do it. McConnell would not even let it come to a vote.

So accurate, except Ive come to realise Frank is mentally ill, dementia, delusions of grandeur or Bi-polar (though its uncommon for episodes to last so long and consistently so maybe not.).
Its obviously very difficult to pin point his actual problem by his posts, but I think its equally obvious that he has some kind of mental illness. To that end, he deserves our pity rather than our derision. You should just let him be dude, I really dont think he can help himself. Engagement usually feeds the fantasy.
Apologies for being preachy...I just feel a bit bad for him, hopefully he has family or friends who help him through the worst of it. If he needs to act like he does to cope, the behaviour is easy to ignore and might be a needed mechanism for him. — DingoJones

That was lame, Dingo.

BOTTOM LINE: Any of you could destroy my assertion by presenting a reasonable syllogism that shows a conclusion of:

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore there is at least one god.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

YOU CANNOT DO IT...because all of those "conclusions" are not actually are conclusions, they are merely guesses.

My guess is that you guys identify as atheists. The people who identify as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...acknowledge "I BELIEVE..." Mostly it is just the atheist who pretend that their guesses are actually logic, reason, and science at work.

Laughable. And so...we get something like this. Accusations of mental illness.

Imagine...being so put out by being told the truth...that you must accuse the messenger of mental illness!

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Trolling and projecting again. Please, Frank, don't be a bore too. :shade: — 180 Proof

I am not trolling. I am responding to posts here in a thread I started.

If you sense a troll...perhaps you are detecting....YOU.

C'mon. Kick your game into second gear, at least. You are chugging.

180 Proof
1.3k
If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof

You've even got the "Onan" analogy wrong.

My immediate contention is that you cannot logically show that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one (or vice versa)...and it is obvious that you cannot.

That seems to be upsetting you.

Calm down...and deal with it. Best you just acknowledge that you cannot. But you do not seem to be the type to do something like that. If I am correct, it is a trait you share with the current President of the United States.

180 Proof
1.3k
... will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years.
— Frank Apisa
Well, sir, Onan's got nothing on you. Carry on ... — 180 Proof

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot, so Onan comes on the scene. My aunt's parakeet has nothing to do with this. (She named her parakeet Onan, because he spilled his seed on the ground.)

180 Proof
1.3k
"... for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves."
— 180 Proof

BALONEY!
— Frank Apisa
Again, making my point. :wink:

"... g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains."
— 180 Proof

Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue ... You cannot do it.
— Frank Apisa
:up:

Thanks, Pinprick! — 180 Proof

I'll wait for the P1 and P2. They will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years...and NBEVER has had anything that comes close.

Mostly attempts devolve into mocking the question...which it what is happening here.

180 Proof
1.3k
All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not.
— Pinprick
Spot-on. :up: Frank's something of a radical relativist, or dogmatic skeptic like the proto-p0m0 Gorgias, (which, of course, is self-refuting), for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves.

Frank's obstinately incorrigible on this point: every (theistic) g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains.

So until he acquaints himself with e.g. Sextus Empiricus, or Hume, or Popper/Feyerabend or Haack, Frank's bound to keep on mistaking 'equipollence' where there isn't any and unfortunately drawing epistemic or logical 'false equivalences' that mislead him into disbelieving "seeing faces" in clouds and the clouds themselves and/or just missing the forest fire for unburnt trees, etc.) — 180 Proof

BALONEY!

Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue by expressing a reasonable P1 and P2 to reach a C of:

Therefore there is a God.

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

You cannot do it...I realize that and so do you.

Pinprick
235
Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us.
— Frank Apisa

All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not. — Pinprick

You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math.

Some of it may be, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we’re right about? Electromagnetism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is inertia or thermodynamics. We understand/know some fundamental things about the world we live in. — Pinprick

Yeah...and perhaps gravity.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist.

BOTTOM LINE: We cannot calculate the probability of "there is a GOD" "there are no gods" "it is more likely one way or the other."

We simply cannot do it.

And we cannot come to any of those things by logic. Give it a try if you think you can. Here is the C:

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (Choose the other side if you prefer.)

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it.

Best to just leave it at "I do not know."

Certainly seems to be.

It also is a time machine.

No way to know what is real and what isn't.

Gotta go with the flow.

Live life as if it is real...not an illusion. Deal with the world as though it is real...not an illusion.

At some point people have to wake up to the reality that "I do not 'believe' X" IS NOT THE SAME AS "I 'believe' NOT-X."

Here are two things about me that are totally true:

I do not "believe" any gods exist...and I do not "believe" there are no gods.

We do not know.

Pinprick
234
@Frank Apisa

In my opinion, science has determined facts about the universe. This isn’t to say we know everything about the universe, but some things we can be certain of. Of these facts, all are physical in nature. If asserting that at least one God exists violates any of these facts, it is very unlikely to be true, because experience has shown us that these facts have never been violated. To say that the existence of at least one God is just as plausible or likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is to deny the effectiveness of science. IOWs, asking me to accept that the existence of at least one God is just as likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is also asking me to discard all that is known about the universe. And you’re asking me to do this without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it seems to me that it is more likely that our scientific facts are in fact factual, and that the God hypothesis is highly unlikely to be true. — Pinprick

C'mon, Pinprick. You are smarter than this.

Even you said it early...of the "facts" we think we know (humans have been fooled about that through the years)..."all are physical in nature."

Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us.

Any guesses about whether gods exist or not (or for that matter, whether any non-physical beings exist) is nothing but a guess. And just as pre-history people made guesses about the nature of things that we find laughable today...perhaps all that science stuff you are touting will be laughable to humans of a couple hundred years from now.

Guess if you want to that there are no gods. Guess if you want to that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...but if you are going to pretend those guesses are any more logical or scientific than guesses that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one...

...you are kidding yourself.

Let's discuss it further. This is good stuff.

When I dress to look good I don't want to be treated as a disposable dildo. I certainly want to attract women but to think that that amounts to the desire to be objectified is patently false. — Michael

Ya gotta be shitting me, Mike. Have things really changed that much?

I'm gonna be 84 in a few weeks, so this is mostly academic at this point, but not too many years ago, my aim in life was to find as many women as possible who would treat me as a disposable dildo. I especially liked any woman who would fuck me sore...and then, shortly after both having our fill, make an excuse to leave. Saved me the trouble of thinking up a reason for asking them to leave.

3017amen
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa

:up:

There is a difference between overthinking for thinking's sake and critical thinking. We all could use a little bit more of this : " It entails effective communication and problem-solving abilities as well as a commitment to overcome native egocentrism and sociocentrism." — 3017amen

Indeed.


:up:

Pfhorrest
2.2k
I suspect we are all "doing philosophy" by simply making our way through life.
— Frank Apisa

:up:

Waking in the morning and wondering, "What should I do first today?" is more "doing philosophy"
— Frank Apisa

I wouldn’t say that exactly, but the immediate followup question of “How do I decide?” definitely is philosophy. — Pfhorrest

Yep.

:up:

I suspect we are all "doing philosophy" by simply making our way through life.

Some people seem to want to make "doing philosophy" mean using big words and constructing complicated thoughts. It shouldn't be. And frankly, much of what passes for "doing philosophy" is little more than pretentious babble.

Some "philosophical thought", in fact, is just a relatively unlearned person speaking the way he/she supposes a learned person speaks.

Waking in the morning and wondering, "What should I do first today?" is more "doing philosophy" than many of the musings of supposed "philosophers."

Well I was responding to this, but no matter. — Brett

When I re-read my response, it sounded more curt than I meant it. I appreciate you taking the time to respond and value what you had to say.

Hope all is well with you. Stay safe. This coronavirus thing has most of us in a place where we'd rather not be.

Not sure how old you are, but at 83, I have no trouble at all meeting new people. I have never been "compelled" to meet them...I just meet them. Up until the virus hit, I was working a couple days a week as a starter on a golf course...and met new people every day. I'm an avid golfer and meet new people on the course and in the club house every day.

My "wounds" are relatively few...and I've learned to put them behind me...to enjoy today and its joys.

Just enjoy the poem for it value as, "Thank god it is you not me."

Thank you for your opinion. I am getting the impression that you think this discussion is not worthwhile.

Okay. That happens.

Perhaps we will meet in another thread where you will be more comfortable with the subject matter.

TheMadFool
6k
Not that I'm a mathematician or a logician or anything worth its salt but Baye's Theorem seems to come up with the goods insofar as the OP's query is concerned:

H = Hypothesis (that god exists)
E = Evidence observed

P(X) = probability that X is true

P(X/Y) = probability that X is true given thaf Y is true

P(H/E) = [P(H) × P(E/H)]/{[P(H) × P(E/H)] × [P(~H) × P(E/~H)]} — TheMadFool

I suck at math.

But I can see that if the H is changed to (no gods exist)...

...we can come to the same whatever.

And given that "...given that Y is true" sounds very contrived...gratuitous or self-serving.

Who proclaimed that Y is true...some god?

jorndoe
873
The most common use of the term "God" (by far) is in reference to whatever religious scriptures.
Not sure how to calculate the probability of those old, sumptuous stories being literal history, but I'd say rather unlikely.
As (mere) characters in stories, a whole lot of fantastic, fictional beings exist, that come to life in the heads of people. — jorndoe

That's the reason I use "gods."

Since this is a philosophy forum, there are other special uses of the term "god" (or in plural), though they'd have to be related to the most common use in some way or other, yes?
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference; otherwise we're asked to calculate the plausibility of the independent existence of whatever vague, nebulous entities that come to mind when invoking the words.
Or, are we just talking (ontologized) abstract objects (Platonia style)? — Jorndoe

I'm talking "gods."

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

EricH
141
Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question.
— Frank Apisa

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

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

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

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

If you truly want to suspend discussion on this topic...makes no sense for me to reply to the questions in your first sentence. I have answered both of those items by giving MY definitions...and would gladly extend those comments. We could then discuss the issue with those definitions in play. (We could have another discussion afterward using your definitions if you choose.)

I do not want there to be a "last word." This is a discussion of something that has captured the imagination and considerations of some of the most learned and intelligent people who have ever lived on the planet...unfortunately to precious little avail.

This is just a discussion of what I consider an extremely interesting topic.

If you would like to continue it...great. If you prefer to drop it...fine.

Thank you. At my age (I'll be 84 in August)...I have no problems with this.

It is a lovely poem...and expresses some things I think need to be expressed.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Fair enough, Frank. Anyway, saying my "syllogism was an abomination" doesn't make it so; more show, less tell works best when defending or criticizing arguments. — 180 Proof

Thank you, 180.

All I can suggest is that you ask a logician about the syllogism that you suppose destroyed my contention. It is fatally defective. All I can do here is to mention that it is. The arguments necessary to establish the validity of my criticism essentially require a detailed lesson in how syllogisms work...which is way beyond what I want to do. If you truly want to check this out...just copy and paste your post above into an email and send it to a professor of logic at a local university.

You certainly can Google "syllogisms valid or invalid" and get a sense of what I mean...but they go on forever.

In any case, as to predicate: I have identified what I mean when speaking about "god/gods" in these discussions. Several times, in fact.

Here are two:

#1:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature, no matter the fact that we cannot perceive them.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

#2


What I mean when I use the words “God” or “gods.”

Predicates:
It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even here is this thing we humans call “the universe” there may well exist entities that are not discernable to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement in not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa So does my impeccable logic. Respect goes both ways. Don't be a spoiled sport, Frankie; it's not like it's the first time I've blown down your silly house of cards. Btw, I'll be 57 in a few months. Call me "kid" if that makes you feel better. :smirk: — 180 Proof

The "logic" in the post in question was not logic...the syllogism was an abomination.

If you consider that an insult...consult a logician (any nearby college or university), and he/she will tell you that there is no logic in what you supposed to be logic.

I do not create a "silly house of cards"...and you have not made a dent in any arguments I have made.

Plus, you did not even attempt to get at any of the C's I proposed.

Lastly, if you refer to me as Frankie, again, I will simply ignore any comments you write from that point on...and that will be a permanent ignore. I hope you do not do it. I enjoy reading what you write, but this stuff stops immediately.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa :kiss: you too, Frankie. — 180 Proof

Not sure what that was supposed to mean.

But I do not like the sound of that "Frankie" you are using.

I will be 84 years old in a few weeks. I think I deserve better.

A Seagull
492
The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.

Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.

Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion?
— Frank Apisa

Certainly logic is important but it needs to be rigorous. Syllogisms are not, IMO, logically rigorous.

See earlier thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/414510 — A Seagull

My point is that one cannot get to X using logic.

Countering that you are essentially claiming that logic is not rigorous enough for the task.

In one way you are defending my position...in another you are unnecessarily and inappropriately maligning LOGIC!

C'mon, AS.

EricH
140
"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.

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

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

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

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

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

Eric, I truly appreciate your intellect and attempt to deal with the problem here, but if you look at your attempt carefully, you will see it as a variation on "I cannot show either side logically, so better to just say that the question itself is incoherent or unworthy."

The question of the true nature of the REALITY of existence...is both coherent and worthy of consideration...even though it is obvious that at this moment in our evolution...we humans are unable to answer questions to which people, for some reasons, want to pretend they know the answers.

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

180 Proof
1.3k
show [ ... ] a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods.
— Frank Apisa

Predicates define X,
X lacks predicates,
X is undefined;
~X (aka "there is not X").

There are gods,
"gods" lack predicates,
"gods" are undefined;
~there are gods (aka "there are no gods")

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.
DEEEstroyed, Frankie. :sweat: Been there, done that. :victory: — 180 Proof

Not even close.

In fact...there is not even a mention of "therefore there are no gods" because you know the "logic" is missing. Your syllogism would be laughed at by any logician.

But thanks for trying. I've not had many who even gives it a shot.

You are making the implicit assumptions that 1. Beliefs are not a part of philosophy and 2. that syllogisms are.
I disagree with both. — A Seagull

At no point have I suggested "beliefs" are not a part of philosophy...nor have I inferred it. It would be an absurdity to do so. My comment dealt with YOUR "beliefs" about magic...and about something that "YOUR 'belief'" tend to show a defiance of LOGIC.


The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.

Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.

Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion?

That particular question was directed to A Seagull...who asserted what you see above.

OK good point. My best answer would be along the lines that I don't believe in magic. And by 'magic' I mean something that defies logic, analysis and understanding. Instilling an idea into man by God requires magic. Man inventing the idea of God does not require magic. — A Seagull

Aside from the fact that what you "believe"should not enter the picture at this point...

...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic.

Or...anyone here can take a shortcut to showing that I am dead wrong on this issue by simply coming up with a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:

1) Therefore there are no gods.

2) Therefore there is at least one god.

3) Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

4) Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.

Benj96
74
Thank you for sharing what you "believe
— Frank Apisa

Why is "believe" in quotation marks here? It's not exactly up for debate whether beliefs exist nor whether my belief is as permissible as anyone elses. Comes across a little sarcastic/standoff-ish but I dunno I could be reading too much into it. I just gave a perspective on the commonalities between scientific endeavour and religious endeavour. — Benj96

I put the words "believe" and "belief" in quotation marks just about EVERY time I type either. You would see that by inspecting my posts here in Philosophy Forum...and any of the other half-dozen fora where I participate. (I've posted tens of thousands of comments in various fora over the last two plus decades.)

There is nothing sarcastic about the quotation marks. I have explained my disdain for those two words when used in discussions of this topic on many of occasions...and simply show the disdain by using the quotation marks.

You are totally entitled to "believe" anything you want. Lewis Carroll, who apparently had the same thoughts about "beliefs" as I, had the Red Queen mention that she "believed" as many as six impossible things before breakfast.

Many of the things people "believe" are correct...but many are totally incorrect.

EricH
139
god(s) exists
— Frank Apisa
In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The part of your response that I made bold is the problem, Eric.

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

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