We are in agreement...even on the item where you corrected what I asserted.

Bottom line: It is my opinion that Occam's Razor and Pascal's Wager are both misused in philosophical discussions...among amateur philosophers. Use of them tends to end up muddying the waters...rather than clearing them.

One other thought: I think most of us, unconsciously, use a form of Occam's Razor in day to day life. I know I do...and when I realize I have, I reflect on my very negative considerations of it.

Pinprick
108
↪jjAmEs You’re either misunderstanding me, or are wording things wrong. I agree that an Atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m arguing that to say an Atheist believes God doesn’t exist is wrong. — Pinprick

Horse hockey!

My guess is that damn near 100% of everyone who uses "atheist" as a descriptor..."believes" that no gods exist...or "believes" that it is MUCH MORE LIKELY that no gods exist than that at least one god does.

Theist, at least, are honest that the have the "beliefs." Atheists want to pretend they do not.

But they do.

House rules. It seems quite simple. — Ciceronianus the White

Yup!

In the current local political climate (21st-Century Trumpiform politics) deploying the qualifier "Chinese" to describe a global pandemic is an act designed to inspire a xenophobic reaction. That should be obvious. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Not only should it be OBVIOUS...it should be SOUNDLY CONDEMNED as well.

This is not the time for that kind of bullshit.

Thanks for speaking out about it.

Michael Lee
52
We never anticipate tragedy and suffering before they arise. — Michael Lee

That certainly seems to be the philosophy of conservative America. We really have to get away from that notion. There is no need for holding off planning a response to a catastrophe until after the catastrophe hits you on the head like a sledge hammer. At least some planning for "probable or likely" catastrophes (Like plagues that have regularly occurred on planet Earth) should be done BEFORE they hit.

Or as explained by Twitter: — StreetlightX

Wow...I needed that laugh this morning.

Thanks!

Probably YES.

But in a nice way.

It seems that NOTHING is going to be resolved in a philosophical discussion, but the conversation can often get interesting on tangents.

Take the beginning of that last sentence, for instance.

Nothing is going to be resolved:

What is really being said there? Are we saying the discussion is futile...or are we suggesting that we can resolve the issue of "nothingness?"

Sorta like..."There's nothing to be afraid of."

Is that an attempt to allay fear or is it calling attention to the ultimate, unavoidable danger.

Stay safe yourself, Amen. Same to everyone in the forum.

Okay...I'm not going to get an answer...and I am tired of asking.

Maybe we will meet in another thread.

3017amen
1.5k
You seem to disagree.
— Frank Apisa

Yes. I disagree. Please see my response and follow-up query. Are you not able to debate those? — 3017amen

I KNOW YOU DISAGREE, AMEN.

I am asking why you think either or both of those statements are NOT just blind guesses.

3017amen
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Frank!

What's the problem, I thought we were engaging in discursive debate? I hope you are not acquiescing by silence/not answering my questions concerning belief... . — 3017amen

I am interested in YOU answering my question first...then we can go to your question.

Here it is again:

I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.

3017amen
1.5k
sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue.
— Frank Apisa

Well Frank, this subject is not for the faint of hearts. It's quite comprehensive. Think of it this way, virtually all domains of Philosophy invoke God. So, that didn't come from me, it came from Philosophy :gasp:

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

I'm trying to, you're not listening Frank. Let's start with this train of thought:

If I tell you I saw God, or had a religious experience, would you believe me? If I read that someone saw God in a history book, or had a religious experience in a history book, should I believe them? What if the teacher teaches me, a something; is that true? — 3017amen

Okay...you are still going to bullshit around.

No problemo. I just thought you were serious.

You've actually been banned...because you think like a women???

"IN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT WE ARE DISCUSSING!"

I have written those words several times in this thread.

I am discussing people using the words "believe/belief" and "faith" IN THE CONTEXT OF A DISCUSSION ABOUT WHAT DOES OR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE REALITY OF EXISTENCE.

It really has nothing to do with your mother, Christian. Surely she is a fine woman...learned, educated...and not a crack-head. I hope she gets the job.

Not sure what to say...you are moving all over the place rather than discussing a single issue.

I am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' there are no gods"...is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

I also am saying that a statement like "I 'believe' (in) God" also is nothing more than a blind guess about whether any gods exist or not.

You seem to disagree.

If you are...tell me how either of those statements is NOT a blind guess.

I don't think Belief is a blind guess. — 3017amen

You don't, huh?

Okay.

On the question, "Does at least one god exist...or do no gods exist?"...

...tell me how a response in either direction is NOT a blind guess?

There is absolutely nothing one can do to answer that question...except to make a blind guess. One could just as easily flip a coin.

It seems to me that faith and belief are closely related. — 3017amen

I agree with this. They are related.

"Belief" (in the context we are discussing) is a blind guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is INSISTING that the blind guess is correct.

3017amen
1.5k
That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time.
— Frank Apisa

Frank!

I realize that word 'Belief' gets under your skin. It would be intriguing to explore some of the reasons with you, as I don't recall us ever chatting or reading about that... . Can you elaborate on your contempt of same? — 3017amen

Most of the time the words "believe/belief" don't bother me at all. "I 'believe' I'll take a wizz before heading to the store" is not gonna faze me a bit. "I 'believe' the GIANTS are gonna have a great season"...is fine with me.

But in a Philosophy forum...when matters of the true nature of the REALITY of existence are being discussed, I think the words are inappropriate.

For instance, a person saying, "I believe there are no gods" is really saying, "It is my blind guess that no gods exist."

Why not say it that way? Why disguise it?

That give you a taste of my distaste of the words. If you want to travel further down this path, we can do so. Not sure it is appropriate for this thread, though.

christian2017
1.2k
(and yes i do believe in evolution).
— christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh?
— Frank Apisa

accepting and believing are both spectrums, and these are two spectrums with very similar meanings atleast in the case when they are used in certain contexts.

I could have said "i accept evolution" or "i accept the theory of evolution" or "i accept that the theory of evolution is true". — christian2017

It does seem as though the theory of evolution has a lot going for it. My guess would be that where we are not...where all living things are now...evolved from some earlier forms.

That "believe in" construct just sits so poorly with me, I mention it from time to time.

(and yes i do believe in evolution). — christian2017

"Believe in" it, huh?

3017amen
1.5k
Yeah, the concept of a god exists...but what does that do for the conversation. The concept of everything for which there is a word...exists.
— Frank Apisa

Frank!

Great comments, thanks. Well, lets parse the meaning of concepts and reality. If it is true that we live primarily in an abstract reality, what would it be to distinguish between what is real and not real? — 3017amen

If existence is just an illusion...there is no way to do that. I do not know...and neither does anyone else.

Question: Is existence an illusion?

Only reasonable answer: Beats the hell out of me.

For instance, other than the physical, it appears that there are more abstract things existing than there are concrete things existing (if you were to include the concept of time) to a value of 3 to 1 (the mental, mathematics, time itself, and the physical--respectively)? In other words there are more abstract things that exist, no? — Amen

I have no idea...and I suspect neither does anyone else. We can make guesses...and play with those guesses...but EXISTENCE may be something so different from what homo sapiens is able to conceptualize...that best to just leave it be.

We don't even know for certain what exists right here in the supposed space we occupy. There may be dimensions of REALITY that humans cannot sense...and cannot even envision.

It is a simplistic look at how to do science...
— Frank Apisa

I thought that probability theory ( justification of Occam's razor ) was alive and well, no? — Amen

Probability theory is NOT a justification of Occam's razor. Nothing is. It was a thought that came up at one point in our history...and now is virtually useless.

I repeat what I said earlier: Using Occam's razor will result in as many incorrect conclusions as correct.

3017amen
1.5k
Ignoring the use of "believe" in that comment, I have no idea of what that means. Do you choose the former or the latter?
— Frank Apisa

Frank!

The former. I'm saying that the concept of a God certainly exists. Why wouldn't it? A concept of Santa exists too. Is there a difference to you? And is that subjective? And is subjectivity wrong, right or incorrect? — 3017amen

Just attempting to understand where you stand, Amen. The "I believe in the former/latter" did not compute.

Yeah, the concept of a god exists...but what does that do for the conversation. The concept of everything for which there is a word...exists.

Maybe I am dense, but I do not understand what point you are trying to make.

How would, in your view, Occam's razor square with theoretical physics and/or common everyday inference?

In my opinion, Occam's razor is crap...and MUCH too given to misuse. But even if used the way Occam intended...it leads to error as often as to truth. It is totally useless in much (perhaps most) of modern physics and quantum mechanics.

It is a simplistic look at how to do science...and while it may have had applicability back in the 14th century...it has almost none right now. (Same holds for most philosophical paradigms constructed to show a God exists.)

Hey Frank!

Well, one possible 'logical' response could be in that scenario, as well as other scenarios or experiences: "Either God exists, or there is a heck of a lot of coincidence. And I choose to believe in the former/latter ." — 3017amen

Ignoring the use of "believe" in that comment, I have no idea of what that means. Do you choose the former or the latter?

And that sort of speaks to the concept or so-called logic behind Pascal's Wager (excluding the apologetic's about punishment, etc. etc.). — Amen

As I have mentioned several times...it is a toss up between Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor for the most worthless philosophical prattle. Neither, in my opinion, is worth the ink used to print it on a page.

Call me a cynic for subscribing to the old adage "When you talk to g/G it's prayer, but when g/G talks back it's probably schizophrenia" which I'd first heard back in the late '70s in Jesuit high school from a devout priest. :eyes: — 180 Proof

The Jebbies were good that way. They were tough, but they were about as down to Earth as any of the orders.

I acknowledge that a GOD might exist. It is possible. It is also possible that no gods exist.

I choose not to guess either way...although it seems certain that one is correct.

If a person says, "There are no gods"...I know that person is just sharing a blind guess.

If a person says, "At least one god exists...and that god has (in some way) revealed itself to me"...I just ask, "How do you know you are not deluding yourself?"

I've encountered several people who claim to have had a god reveal itself to them...but have never had one of them respond reasonably to the question I ask. Most merely offer, "I know I am not deluding myself"...and then refuse to discuss it further.

Not sure if that is applicable to what you are discussing here, but I hope it does.

Coben
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa He means that he thinks it is true that God exists.
What you are really asking him is how he arrived at his conclusion. — Coben

I think he will not be able to answer a question about how he arrived at his conclusion.

He may be right. I acknowledge it is possible at least one GOD exists. And, of course, it is possible there are no gods.

I suspect that most people who say, "I 'believe' (in) GOD" or "I 'believe' there are no gods"...are doing the same thing I do when I toss a coin on the issue.

That is why I asked what he meant by it...rather than WHY he said whatever it is he meant.

Now i believe in god but not in the creator. — Anonim

Can you put this into other words...without using the "believe?"

Different people mean different things when they say "I 'believe (in)." Just wondering what you mean.

Eleonora
49
I guess every god has its little faults and idiosyncrasies
— Frank Apisa

Be and let be is my only decree. — Eleonora

Wouldn't it be great if there were a god invented that felt that same way.

I guess every god has its little faults and idiosyncrasies:


"I, the Lord, your God, am a jealous God, inflicting punishments
for their fathers' wickedness on the children of those who hate
me, down to the third and fourth generation." Deuteronomy 5:9


They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. [2 Chronicles 15:12-13]


Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants, as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." [Deuteronomy 13:13-19]

unenlightened
4.4k
How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him!
— Frank Apisa

That won't work at all because a masochist enjoys being tortured. Obviously you have to torture a masochist by kindly indulging her with the torture she loves, which she will hate, which she will love, which she will hate, which she will love...

Or possibly, life is not quite that one-dimensional. — unenlightened

:smile:

Great point, un. I got tortured trying to carry all that to its ultimate conclusion. And I am most definitely NOT a masochist.

If you are directing this to me (cannot really tell, but I suspect you are)...

...you are dead wrong in saying that my comments are illogical.

The only comments that can be made about the issue "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods?"...IS A GUESS. A BLIND GUESS.

Now...if you are saying that you can logically answer that question, "At least one exists" or "None exists"...without it being a blind guess...

...please do it and explain how it was logically done.

(Hint: Don't put too much effort into this, because it CANNOT be done. EVERY answer that asserts one or the other will be a blind guess. The ONLY logical answer is, "I do not know...but if you want me to guess, I am willing to toss a coin.")

No, I'm not disregarding it, but I am denying that the satisfaction she gets is the motive she has. — unenlightened

We both agree that Mrs. un get the satisfaction. BUT you are assigning a motive for the satisfaction...that may be wrong.

I am merely saying that she gets satisfaction out of making you the tea. It pleases her. It probably pleases her a great deal. For you to definitively say that the pleasure derived is not the motivation...is unwarranted. It may very well be the motivation.

But whether it is or not...we can agree that she does derive pleasure out of it.

In fact the satisfaction she gets is dependent on it not being done for herself, but for me. — unenlightened

We agree on that also. Just as we agree that she is deriving satisfaction or pleasure from doing it FOR YOU.

But what you are disregarding is everything I have written, and in particular that what you are claiming is not even wrong, merely vacuous. — unenlightened

How could I be disregarding it...when I am responding to it? Sorry you consider my remarks vacuous, un. No reason for that.

By the way, you should avoid over-use of the "it is not even wrong" meme. It is stale as a year old slice of bread.

No one is ever going to supply Mad Fool's request...because everything we do is to satisfy ourselves. As I said earlier, Mother Teresa and Albert Schweitzer were as hedonistic in their humanitarianism...as some twisted asshole getting his jollies boffing a Volkswagen exhaust pipe.

But Mrs un has made me a cup of tea. And this is not the same as making herself a cup of tea. Some acts are oriented to oneself, and some acts are oriented towards others, and this is fairly typical of any social species. Mrs un makes herself a cup because she wants one: and she makes me a cup because I want one. I think the different orientation is significant, but I don't think it matters too much what terms you use, as long as your understanding can take account of the distinction. Self- centred and other-centred will do, or hedonistic and altruistic if you like, or some other terms of your choice. — unenlightened

What you are disregarding is that Mrs. un is deriving satisfaction from making YOU a cup of tea. Yes, she made a cup of tea for herself...to satisfy something that pleased her. And she made a cup of tea for you...to satisfy something that pleased her also. Doing the one...does not negate doing the other.

Yep.

How do you torture a masochist?

Be loving toward him!

Pinprick
102
Yeah...the people who are saying "I believe (in) god" are saying "I blindly guess there is a god"...but they are disguising the fact that they are saying that.
— Frank Apisa

I don’t think this is accurate. You may be correct that affirming “God exists” is really a guess, but the person actually affirming that statement may not realize that. They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true. Therefore, they are not being deceptive, because they are not willfully trying to disguise anything, they are simply ignorant of the fact that their reasoning is flawed. Also, I’m of the opinion that people use the word belief to express their confidence when compared with “think” or “guess.” I know that I do that at least, but that’s not to say that their confidence isn’t misplaced, it certainly can be. Perhaps what you’re truly getting at is that people shouldn’t be so confident in conclusions drawn from faulty logic? — Pinprick

Excellent post, P.

Yeah...I am doing what many who argue issues like this one do...going a bit over the top to stress a point. I doubt very seriously that anyone saying, "I 'believe' (in) God" or "I 'believe' there are no gods" is purposefully attempting to deceive...but the result of using "believe" ends up with that result. They are deceiving not only the people to whom they are making the statement, they are deceiving themselves. (More on that point in a second.)

I am advocating for not using the word that way in these kinds of discussions...or at least of keeping in mind of the effect of using it...which is disguise.

For instance, in this response you wrote, "They may truly believe that the statement “God exists” is undeniably true."

There is that problem in practice. Change the wording and look at that sentence, "They may truly blindly guess that the statement "God exists" is undeniably true."

Of course they do!

They are supposing, estimating, guessing, blindly guessing, insinuating, suggesting, conjecturing...that "God exists"...but they are not using any of those words. (Neither are you, here.)

They are using "believe." They claim it is a "belief."

And then...they argue that we should all RESPECT the "beliefs" of everyone else!

How would that sentiment sound if proposed as, "We ought all to respect the blind guesses of everyone else?"

Would that make sense?

unenlightened
4.4k
the winner is invariably the hedonistic value. I consider this to be ample evidence that hedonism is the ultimate overarching paradigm for any and all values.
— TheMadFool

So the man who lays down his life for his friends is a hedonist? — unenlightened

In a sense, there is no greater manifestation of hedonism.

Imagine how much one has to "desire it"...for the "it" to be giving up one's life for another.

It is what every martyr has done.

Jesus did it; Joan of Arc did it; Sydney Carton is made a hero for fictionally doing it; many have done it.

My feelings are that we are all "hedonists" in that we all seem to do those things that bring us the most satisfaction.

Mother Teresa, Albert Schweitzer were hedonists. Yeah, they were humanitarians, but they did what pleased themselves...what brought happiness to themselves.

What I wonder is "Can a person do something that does not bring him/herself what he or she wants and desires?"

1. With respect to the free-will issue, we should refrain from believing falsehoods. (premise)

This "argument" seems to go off the tracks at this point..and, unfortunately, "this point" is labeled #1.

#1 requires a conclusion...before all of the "premises" that supposedly will lead to the C.

Sounds as though Michael Huemer's "Proof of Free Will"...depends on "I will deem what I want to be true...to be true and will deem to be false what I want to be false. Then, using that as a bsis, I will arrive at the conclusion I decided was the correct conclusion before I applied any supposed logic.

Anyone who uses "I 'believe' X" as a premise...is a dingbat.

Either you are misrepresenting...or he is a dingbat.