• On the existence of God (by request)


    Its the MUST bit I see as wooly. We were only concerned with "does" or "doesn't". Otherwise we are sort of dropping inbetween "does" or "doesnt" and therefore losing the straight clarity we were trying to maintain. The answer we keep returning to is, "don't know". Neither "believer", neither "non believer". — Anti

    The "must" is essential to what I am saying there.

    Read it again...without allowing any confirmation bias conflict. You should be able to see wyhy.
  • On the existence of God (by request)


    I'm just trying to say, as clearly and concisely as I can, we agree the answer is "not known". If we reason further and say anything more, we are assuming, whether its "does" "doesnt" matters not because we already established "dont know". Not "doesnt". :) — Anti

    We agree that we do not know.

    This "assuming" stuff that you are injecting is off-the-wall as far as I am concerned.

    My take as proposed is right on the button...and the "assumptions" you presume...are contrived. I repeat:

    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.
  • On the existence of God (by request)


    No problemo. I always cut jerkoffs a big break.
  • On the existence of God (by request)

    True, same as the rest of us. — Anti
    We agree...so far.

    Already, in a slightly clever way making a presumption that "creator exists" — Anti
    Not even close. There is absolutely no presumption that a "creator exists" in what I wrote.

    Why are you trying to distort my comments?

    Sort of true as the statement is a little woolly. — Anti

    Not woolly at all. And not "sort of true." It is absolutely true. I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence.

    True.

    So it's statement 2 that "suggests" you do, or might do.
    — Anti

    Not sure what you are trying to contort here...or why you think it necessary to contort. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...and I most assuredly don't.

    Opps, done it again. Now you assumed there isn't. So an assertion, so in error. Remember, the truth is "don't know". :) — Anti

    Ahhh...you are playing a game.

    Okay.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Nobeernolife
    314
    Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension.
    — Frank Apisa

    OK, boomer...
    Nobeernolife

    I'm 83. Hardly a boomer.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Nobeernolife
    313
    YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"
    Never in million years. Make that a billion years.
    — Frank Apisa

    As I said, I can not help you with your obvious reading comprehension problems, so please stop trying to argue.
    Nobeernolife

    I am not arguing...merely trying to get through the concrete in your head.

    Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension. You simply are making no sense.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    311Not sure of what that "you have faith" stuff was all about...but if you think I am guessing that there is a god or that there are no gods...

    ...YOU ARE WRONG.

    Here is my take on the issue:

    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.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Antidote
    83
    Now, having made the assumption, and therefore incorporated the error, what influence has that error had on the people you know, the way you have chosen to lead your life, and the conversations you have had with others who you have also convincingly told that there is "no creator"? What is the impact on mankind as a whole as all those people who asserted such falseness? If there is a creator, the creator is not going to be best pleased about all that. If you were the creator, how would you feel about that?

    You see, responsibility is part and parcel of your actions, so you are responsible for your part in the destruction of the faith. Imagine you convinced someone who had faith that your non sense was true, and as a result of that, they then gave up their faith. I believe it was written, "it would have been better for them if they had not been born." But, if there is a creator, it is acknowledged that such things happen (such is infinite love), and repentance and acknowledgement of such things may undo your damage, well if you were listen to the written record on faith that is.

    But of course, your in a bit of a quandary now, because not only have you made an error on "creator DOES NOT exist", you have also denied the only thing that is capable of saving you - faith. Unless of course you do have faith, and the atheist stand is something else?

    I say this as the scientist still, because we started from the position of "knowing nothing" which allowed us to remain "open" to the possibility of "maybe there is a creator" and so far, we could not prove it either way so although I say the above, it's still very much from the position that neither have been proved.
    Antidote

    For the record...and to clear up point of disagreement with you...

    ...I have never said that a blind guess that there is at least one god...or that there are no gods...

    ...IS AN ERROR.

    Either might be totally correct...and one almost certainly IS CORRECT.

    We do not know which is correct.

    IF...please note thatIF you are asserting either is an error...that assertion is just a guess.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Been trying to explain exactly that to Frank Apisa for a whole string of messages now, but it is like talking to a wall....Nobeernolife

    YOU...have been trying to explain to me that "If the position of an atheist is "creator DOES NOT exist", then the assertion is an assumption????"

    Never in million years. Make that a billion years.

    I have been the one stating that...NOT YOU.

    Anyone asserting "a god exists" or "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists"...

    ...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS...or an assumption if that word makes you feel any better. Or a supposition...if that is your preference.

    So get off the you've "been trying to explain that" to me.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Back for a second.

    Anti...take your own advise and carefully read before responding.

    At no point am I suggesting that YOU are asserting that no gods exist.

    I not only used the word "IF" at the beginning of each of those sentences...I made sure to capitalize it.

    If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite". — Anti

    I am not asking you to prove a god or a creator does not exist...any more than I would ask you to lift the Empire State Building using just YOUR muscles. IT CANNOT BE DONE.

    As for "it would be in growth or its opposite" I truly do not understand what that means. I tend to think (whatever it means) is that it is also JUST A GUESS. This "using reason" some people offer is almost always just a denial that guessing is happening.

    But, I promise to stay open minded on it if you want to explain why you are doing a non-theist version of what a god must possess that is done by theists in the opposite direction.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Antidote
    78
    Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess
    — Frank Apisa

    If you re-read the statement, you will see we were very careful not to "guess". We used reason to arrive at a conclusion of "we couldn't prove a creator didn't exist, but if one did, it would be in growth or its opposite".

    As you rightly say, we have to be careful we don't want to fall into error here.

    acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess
    — Frank Apisa

    As stated above, unless your interpretation of "guess" is different from mine. I would say, in the absence of sufficient fact, a "guess" is offered as a "possibility". But you can clearly see, we didn't do that. We were very careful. Please do pull it to pieces if possible, it will help us all. But if you, do, please keep within the rules and within the example so we can all see, and not fall into error of clever misunderstandings or assumptions.
    Antidote

    Gotta run right now, but I will respond to this in a while, Anti.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Nobeernolife
    307
    You are looking at this back to front. We cannot prove there is a creator, only to prove if there isn't one. Of which, we have not been able to do.
    — Antidote

    No, the burden should not be to prove a negative. How do you come up with this stuff?
    Nobeernolife

    IF an individual says, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...THAT IS A POSITIVE ASSERTION ABOUT WHAT IS OR IS NOT.

    The burden falls on the person making such an assertion.

    IF you are asserting that is not so...YOU ARE WRONG.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    I don't think it's possible to prove that there is no creator. Or god, or whatever you want to call it.

    Proof either way by empirical methods is impossible, and by a priori methods is also impossible.

    At least this is what I heard. Don't quote me on this, please.
    god must be atheist

    There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist. There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that IT IS MORE LIKELY one way or the other.

    Any assertion in either direction is nothing more than a blind guess...worth nothing more than a coin toss.

    People making assertions in either direction should stop doing it...or at least, acknowledge that the assertion is just a blind guess.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    296
    @Frank Apisa:
    I can´t help you with your reading comprehension problems, sorry.
    Nobeernolife


    I do not have a reading comprehension problem.

    Are you really going this far to justify your ducking my question?

    Jeez
  • Belief in nothing?
    For anyone wondering what this bullshit between Nob and I is all about:

    I originally wrote: "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

    Nob replied with: "I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply."

    So to be sure I understood him/her, I asked: " So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?"

    Apparently Nob realized he was in over his head, and characterized the question as "nonsensical."

    Now you are up-to-date.
  • Belief in nothing?
    I am not "ducking" anything, and you might want to stop mind-reading.Nobeernolife

    You are ducking my questions...and attempting to "justify" ducking them by calling them nonsensical. Don't bother to justify...just duck 'em.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    294
    They are NOT nonsensical.
    — Frank Apisa

    You saying that does not make it so.
    Nobeernolife

    The fact that is IS so...is what makes it so.

    You are not ducking my questions because they are nonsensical, Nob. You are ducking them because you are afraid of them for some reason.

    Wonder what that is?
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    293
    Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable.
    — Frank Apisa

    Your questions are nonsensical.
    Nobeernolife

    They are NOT nonsensical.

    They show your assertions are baloney...so you have to avoid them.

    If you truly use "atheist" as a descriptor...you do suppose there are no gods...or suppose it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
  • Belief in nothing?
    TheMadFool
    5.1k
    Prove that they are not the same thing???

    Is that what you are asking me to do?
    — Frank Apisa

    Yes
    TheMadFool

    Easy enough.

    First, here are the statements: "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist,."

    Let's try it the easiest way possible. I'd like to see how you react to that.

    One is a statement about what John "DOES NOT think exists." It is a negative statement...telling what John does not "think."

    The second is a statement about what John "DOES think does not exist."
    The condition being assessed is, "god does not exist." It is a positive statement.

    In the first rendition, John is negatively assessing it. He is not saying it does not exist...he is saying he does not think it exists. He MAY think it does not exist...but that is not what is being said with the thought. He may also think its opposite...he may think it exists and he may think it does not exist.

    In the second rendition, John is expressly saying that he DOES think it does not exist.

    The sentence structure sucks...and this can be more easily understood if it were reworded. Essentially what is being said are these two things"

    1) Jack "believes" (guesses, supposes) that no gods exist.

    2) Jack does not "believe" (guess, suppose) that any gods exist.

    The first is like granite...it cannot logically be modified by "Jack also 'believes' the opposite (that gods do exist.)

    The second does nothing of the kind. It can easily be said that Jack does not "believe" that any gods exist...AND its opposite...Jack does not "believe" that no gods exist.

    He can easily do both at the same time...with the second rendition.

    I do. Personally.

    I do not "believe" any gods exist.

    I also do not "believe" that no gods exist.

    There are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them.

    There also are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them either.

    I do not "believe" no gods exist...AND...I do not "believe" there are no gods.

    Not a play on words...or a semantic exercise. Merely stating a truth.
  • Belief in nothing?
    If so, then the thought “no Gods exist” doesn’t have to be a belief.Pinprick

    The "thought" "no gods exist" is nothing but a blind guess about the reality . Most theists and atheists call their blind guesses..."beliefs." So in a way...the "thought" "no gods exist" IS a "belief."
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    291
    So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?
    — Frank Apisa
    I have no opinion on that, just as I have no opinion on the existence of pink walrusses on Mars.
    I simply do not believe the claims made by theists.

    So...just to be sure we are on the same page...tell me...do you think it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...or do you think it is about a 50/50 proposition.
    — Frank Apisa
    Define "god" first, then I can try to answer.

    By the way, I am not a against religion per se. I think non-political, contemplative religions can have a great merit for societies. Just to get that out of the way.
    Nobeernolife

    Fuck religion...and fuck atheism.

    Nob...you may be a decent person. No way I can know.

    But your arguments seem out of whack.

    If you truly call yourself an atheist simply because you do not "believe" the claims of theists...you are a weak person. You also do not "believe" the claims of people who "believe" no gods exist, but you do not call yourself a theist.

    Duck the answers to my questions and hold on to fable. You will be more comfortable than if you challenge that nonsense.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Yeah...not if you want to play games instead of actually have a discussion.

    I don't feel like playing games.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    290
    Here is my comment:

    "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."
    — Frank Apisa

    I can not generalize about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor", since I personally know only a limited number and I have not seen a large opinion poll about "people who use "atheist" as a descriptor".
    I am a person who use "atheist" as a descriptor myself, and for me, your claim does not apply.
    Nobeernolife

    So you are saying that YOU use "atheist" as a descriptor...but you DO NOT "believe" it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god does exist?

    Okay...unusual, but it could be.

    So...just to be sure we are on the same page...tell me...do you think it is more likely that at least one god exists than that none exist...or do you think it is about a 50/50 proposition.

    And if either of those are so...why do you choose to use the descriptor "atheist?"
  • Belief in nothing?
    TheMadFool
    5.1k
    What I said was that "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist"...saree two completely different thoughts.

    If you assert they say the same thing...you are wrong.

    You did assert they were the same. You were wrong.
    — Frank Apisa

    What do you mean? Prove it to me, if you care.
    TheMadFool

    Prove that they are not the same thing???

    Is that what you are asking me to do?
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    288
    Frank Apisa:
    I think we are talking past each other.
    Nobeernolife

    Okay...so let's stop doing that.

    We'll start over again.

    Here is my comment:

    "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

    You took issue with that. If you still take issue with it, tell me why you do...and make your argument for why you do. I'll defend what I said, because it is true.
  • On the existence of God (by request)
    Pfhorrest
    1.5k
    What I actually wrote was:
    — Frank Apisa

    Lots of talk about what the word "god" means...but not about what the word "believe" means.
    — Frank Apisa
    Pfhorrest

    You left out the complete of what I said...and thereby changed what I actually said.

    Allow me to give you a taste of it:

    You wrote: "I did misquote you."

    See how that works?
  • Belief in nothing?
    TheMadFool
    5.1k
    I agree with what you said in your first paragraph...but disagree with these two sentences completely.

    You haven't thought this through if you think "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist" is merely word play. They represent two completely different thoughts.
    — Frank Apisa

    If it's true that x doesn't think god exists it means that for x the proposition "god exists" is not true but that would mean x has to think god doesn't exist unless you're claiming atheists = agnostics.
    TheMadFool

    What I said was that "John does not think that god exists" and "John thinks god does not exist"...saree two completely different thoughts.

    If you assert they say the same thing...you are wrong.

    You did assert they were the same. You were wrong.
  • What is the probability that there are major conspiracies
    There is a 43% chance that conspiracies such as you are asking about exist, Gregory.

    There also is a 92% chance that a majority of statistics are made up right on the spot.
  • People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? The real Original Sin, then and today, to mo


    I see it as a fable...and the only "moral" conclusion I see drawn is of failure on the part of the humans to the will of the god.

    Of course, the mythology includes some need for villains...so I understand what you are attempting to portray. You do feel that same way about Judas, right? He was doing what the god of the Bible (and Jesus) wanted and needed done. Correct?
  • People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? The real Original Sin, then and today, to mo


    Okay...so the same story...with different interpretations.

    One from a group who considers itself to be the "chosen people" of the god...and one from a group who considers itself not to be the chosen people.

    I read the story...as someone who guesses it to be a fable.

    And reading this fable as anything but a failure of humanity in the eyes of the god seems one hell of a stretch.

    But...that's just me, a non-Christian...and the 2.5 billion Christians who happen to think that interpretation works best.
  • People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? The real Original Sin, then and today, to mo
    Gnostic Christian Bishop
    997
    The god in the story was an idiot invented by an idiot.
    — Frank Apisa

    Actually, the reverse is true if you reverse the Christian take of a fall to the original Jewish view of Eden being where man was elevated.

    The idiot label belongs to the Christians who reversed the moral of the story. The Jewish version is quite good and elevating to the ego instead of tearing it down the way Christianity did. All while even more stupidly saying that Adam furthered god's plan.
    Gnostic Christian Bishop

    Really?

    I've got a couple of Hebrew Bibles...and they have the same story as the Christian Bibles.

    Explain to me (to us) the difference as you see it.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    287
    Just as a reminder to Frank Apisa et al.... I didn´t think it is necessary on a "philosophy" forum, but here we go. Disbelieving a phantastic claim is NOT the same as believing something:
    Nobeernolife

    You are ABSOLUTELY CORRECT in that.

    But what does that have to do with what I said?

    Nothing...that's what.

    I did not think it necessary to remind people of that in a Philosophy Forum...but...I guess I had to.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    287
    People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
    — Frank Apisa

    No. This is old and tired talking point. Disbelieving a claim is not a belief.
    Nobeernolife

    You are correct..."disbelieving" IS NOT A BELIEF.

    But is not what I said.

    I said "People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

    And both of those things ARE "beliefs."

    How about listing all the people YOU know who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor...who DO NOT "believe" there are no gods...or who do NOT "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

    My guess...you cannot name even one, because my further guess is that there are none.
  • People want to be their own gods. Is that good or evil? The real Original Sin, then and today, to mo

    The "eating of the Tree if Knowledge" myth is the "See spot run!" part of the Bible. Whoever invented it was an idiot.

    Supposedly the god put two naive (childlike) beings into a garden and instructed them to enjoy themselves but not eat of a particular fruit.

    Any three year old child could predict with CERTAINTY what would happen.

    The god in the story was an idiot invented by an idiot.
  • Belief in nothing?
    The use of the word "atheist"...is result of a person doing "believing"...and for the most part, pretending that no "believing" is going on.

    People who use "atheist" as a descriptor are people who either "believe" there are no gods...or who "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

    ATHEISM is as much a product of "belief" as theism.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    285
    I believe atheism is A. Atheism is the belief god doesn't exist for certain.
    — TheMadFool

    Err, no. That would be anti-theism. Atheism simply refers to disbelief of the claim, not a belief in non-existence.
    Nobeernolife

    Bullshit.

    Anyone using the descriptor atheist is using it because he/she either "believes" there are no gods...or "believes" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
  • Belief in nothing?
    Nobeernolife
    285
    True enough...as long as we acknowledge that being unconvinced that no gods exist...also is Agnosticism.
    — Frank Apisa

    You want to bring out that old canard? That is just Russels orbiting teapot again.
    Nobeernolife

    Are you saying that being unconvinced that gods exist AND being unconvinced that no gods exist...

    ...are not agnostic positions.

    Or are you just shooting off your mouth?
  • Belief in nothing?
    Pfhorrest: In your diagram you make a distinction between "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist". This is mere wordplay.TheMadFool

    I agree with what you said in your first paragraph...but disagree with these two sentences completely.

    You haven't thought this through if you think "doesn't think god exists" and "thinks god doesn't exist" is merely word play. They represent two completely different thoughts.