Some interesting issues get raised here.

I am not sure at all that the "casual" and "philosophical" distinction makes sense, but let's see what can be done with it anyway. It isn't clear at all that in philosophical contexts "knowing" means being absolutely certain. Most philosophical arguments don't make their conclusions absolutely certain - not even the most influential ones. Most contemporary philosophical arguments are tentative inferences to the best explanation or else deductive arguments which rest on merely plausible or "intuitive" premises. So I suppose that you aren't trying to describe how "know" is actually used in Philosophy, but recommending a way it should to be used? But what could the grounds be for this linguistic recommendation?

At any rate, it would be quite uninteresting to me if this were just a debate about how the word "know" should be used. So, leaving the word "knowledge" out of it for a minute (since it often gets in the way!), you seem to think that it is unacceptable to make philosophical claims without a "great deal of substantiation" - presumably much more substantiation than is required for casual claims - but why must that be so? Why isn't it acceptable for me to make philosophical claims on the basis of pretty good, but not conclusive, evidence?

PA

PossibleAaran
187
↪Frank Apisa
Some interesting issues get raised here.

I am not sure at all that the "casual" and "philosophical" distinction makes sense, but let's see what can be done with it anyway. It isn't clear at all that in philosophical contexts "knowing" means being absolutely certain. Most philosophical arguments don't make their conclusions absolutely certain - not even the most influential ones. Most contemporary philosophical arguments are tentative inferences to the best explanation or else deductive arguments which rest on merely plausible or "intuitive" premises. So I suppose that you aren't trying to describe how "know" is actually used in Philosophy, but recommending a way it should to be used? But what could the grounds be for this linguistic recommendation?

At any rate, it would be quite uninteresting to me if this were just a debate about how the word "know" should be used. So, leaving the word "knowledge" out of it for a minute (since it often gets in the way!), you seem to think that it is unacceptable to make philosophical claims without a "great deal of substantiation" - presumably much more substantiation than is required for casual claims - but why must that be so? Why isn't it acceptable for me to make philosophical claims on the basis of pretty good, but not conclusive, evidence? — PossibleAaran

I am sure there are many philosophical discussions where I would be content with a fairly mundane understanding of what the word "know" means to denote.

But I specifically spoke to a certain segment where I think it an inappropriate use, namely:


"...saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation."

So, I acknowledge your point that the way I said what I said requires a, "...but why must that be so."

Speaking of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence, though...goes past that point.

Using "know" in the context of the phrases I mentioned above...incurs a burden of substantiation (not proof) that I see as both necessary (required) and unattainable.

If you differ on this...give a specific of disagreement...and I'll give my position on it.

My question to you is: why is it unacceptable to say something like "I know that God exists" or " I know that there are no gods" without having absolute certainty whilst it is acceptable to say something like "I know that London is the capital of England" without having absolute certainty?

My specific disagreement is this: I don't see why claims about the existence of God require a larger amount of substantiation than claims (for example) about the capitals of cities. It seems to me that it is perfectly sufficient - there is nothing objectionable about it - to base a claim that God exists/doesn't exist on good but inconclusive evidence. I thought you disagreed with this. Am I mistaken?


PA

PossibleAaran
188
↪Frank Apisa


My question to you is: why is it unacceptable to say something like "I know that God exists" or " I know that there are no gods" without having absolute certainty whilst it is acceptable to say something like "I know that London is the capital of England" without having absolute certainty? — PossibleAaran

So you are of the opinion that if it is logical to say, "London is the capital of England"...it is also logical to say, "I know there are no gods" and/or "I know there is at least one GOD."

That would be like saying it is logical to say, "I know that London is the capital of England" and/or..."I know that London is not the capital of England."

In any case, I am not saying it is "unacceptable." If a person wants to say, "I know there are no gods"...that is perfectly "acceptable." If they want to say, "I know there are no living organisms of any sort on the fifth planet out from the third closest star to Sol"...that is "acceptable."

A bit bizarre...but acceptable.

Not sure what you are getting at here, PA.

Try me again, if you want.

My specific disagreement is this: I don't see why claims about the existence of God require a larger amount of substantiation than claims (for example) about the capitals of cities.

Okay...I'll take your word on that. You do not see why a claim of "I know there are no gods" should be treated any differently from a claim of "I know Paris is the capital of France"

Best I can say in reply is: I do see it.

It seems to me that it is perfectly sufficient - there is nothing objectionable about it - to base a claim that God exists/doesn't exist on good but inconclusive evidence. I thought you disagreed with this. Am I mistaken?

I'm not really sure...mostly because I do not normally word things that way...nor do I infer what you seem to be inferring. If I may...I would ask you to quote exactly what I said that you find objectionable or incorrect...and allow me to defend those words rather than your characterization of them.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction. — Frank Apisa

So I think what you are saying is that no one can prove a negative? That is why the burden of proof is typically on those making a claim vs those denying it (I get that you are claiming to do neither). That being said, a lack of evidence can precisely be evidence.

Is there a monster under your bed?

First we need to define monster. First, it is bigger than a small pet. Could the monster be invisible, lack odor, make no noise etc - yes, seems reasonable. Can the monster be immaterial? No that is a spirit or ghost or apparition or something. Now given these qualifiers, we can "prove" there is no monster by a lack of evidence. If it cannot be seen, felt, smelled, or heard, then it is NOT there. Now obviously with gods, we have much more space to check than just under the bed, but a lack of evidence is still evidence in the direction of no gods.

Would you say it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of monsters under your bed?

What about the lock ness monster?

Could there have been humans in the past with super powers (real power, not a little smarter than average)?

Are Zeus and Poseidon equally likely (or unlikely) as the Christian god and is that god equally likely to any random definition of god? (notice that any random definition would include anything that could possibly be conceived of as a god, and therefor is MORE likely than the 2 previous examples by definition)

Again, we are not claiming certainty, just likelihood.

cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

We are not likely to agree here. A lack of evidence does exactly make something less likely than if there was evidence. Otherwise, what is the point of evidence?

I do not think you have ever addressed this bolded bit. If you can show me the error of that portion, maybe there is progress to be made.

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

This is where you argue inductively. The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. For God, it requires abductive and even much simply deductive arguments. If God is imperceptible to the Earth, then why should he be perceptible in the universe? Although we have not examined the universe in its entirety, it might be a fair evaluation to say that God is not perceivable in the universe despite his omnipresence. For sentient beings - or aliens, it is also a fair evaluation to convey that the infinity of the universe, can most probably imply that there are, aliens.

You still remember I am, theistic right?

In casual conversation one can easily and reasonably say, "I know where I parked my car"; "I know the name on my birth certificate is..."; "I know that London is the capital of England"...and the like.

But saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation. — Frank Apisa

Here is what I think I disagree with. Why does saying "I know there are no Gods" or "I know there is a God" require more substantiation than "I know that London is the capital of England"?

PA

Suppression of doubt is critical for a good performance, especially when hecklers are in the audience. And the sense of any proposition is in relation to it's performance.

Saying that something doesn't exist for which there has never been an iota of evidence doesn't incur a burden of substantiation. By its very definition, substantiation is a demonstration of substance. Every assertion of a god or gods is inseparable from its inability to ascribe verifiable substance to god or gods.

An assertion that there is no such thing as a god or gods is unconditionally accompanied by literally all of the evidence in the observable universe. The only "evidence" ever provided for the existence of any supernatural thing is imagination, heightened emotion, some unverifiable personal experience.

ZhouBoTong
148

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction. — Frank Apisa


So I think what you are saying is that no one can prove a negative? — ZhouBoTong

That definitely is NOT what I am saying. Of course one can prove a negative.

That is why the burden of proof is typically on those making a claim vs those denying it (I get that you are claiming to do neither). That being said, a lack of evidence can precisely be evidence. — Zhao

The burden of proof falls on anyone making an assertion. If one asserts, "There are no gods"...the burden of proof is as real as the burden for the assertion, "At least one GOD exists."

Is there a monster under your bed?

First we need to define monster. First, it is bigger than a small pet. Could the monster be invisible, lack odor, make no noise etc - yes, seems reasonable. Can the monster be immaterial? No that is a spirit or ghost or apparition or something. Now given these qualifiers, we can "prove" there is no monster by a lack of evidence. If it cannot be seen, felt, smelled, or heard, then it is NOT there. Now obviously with gods, we have much more space to check than just under the bed, but a lack of evidence is still evidence in the direction of no gods.

Would you say it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of monsters under your bed? — Zhao

There is evidence. You look under the bed and there is no monster.

And, If you were able to look everywhere in the universe and find no gods...that would be evidence of no gods. Because one finds no eight-legged, two-headed equines on planet Earth...is not evidence there are no eight-legged, two-headed equines. And because we humans are unable to detect any extra-dimensional beings of any sort (god-like or not god-like) here on Earth...does not mean there are no extra-dimensional beings here.

ASIDE: I have been wrong on my wording...careless actually. Of course there is evidence that at least one GOD exists...AND that no gods exist. Everything that exists is evidence that no gods exist IF NO GODS EXIST...and everything is evidence that at least one GOD exists IF ONE GOD EXISTS.

I should have used "unambiguous evidence"...which will still have to be defended, but is what I usually use.

What about the lock ness monster? — Zhao

Been a friend of the family for years, Z. What about it?

Could there have been humans in the past with super powers (real power, not a little smarter than average)? — Zhao

Anything not established as impossible is possible. So...there could have been.

Are Zeus and Poseidon equally likely (or unlikely) as the Christian god and is that god equally likely to any random definition of god? (notice that any random definition would include anything that could possibly be conceived of as a god, and therefor is MORE likely than the 2 previous examples by definition) — Zhao

Beats me. I do not deal with specific gods. I am dealing with the notion of "No gods exist" or "At least one GOD exists"...and I acknowledge that I do not know.

Do you?

Again, we are not claiming certainty, just likelihood. — Zhao

I have absolutely no idea of how likely it is that no gods exist...and I have absolutely no idea of how likely it is that at least one GOD exists...so I am no willing to make a guess on those questions. If you are asking me if I ever make guesses on anything else...my answer it: Yes I do. I probably will make a guess about the winner of the Kentucky Derby...and place a bet on my guess.

cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa


We are not likely to agree here. A lack of evidence does exactly make something less likely than if there was evidence. Otherwise, what is the point of evidence? — Zhao

Okay...that's fair. So you think that since we have no evidence of living organisms of any sort on the fifth planet out from the third closest star to Sol"...you consider that evidence that there is no life there.

Fine with me.

I hope it can be fine with you if I consider that an illogical conclusion.

I do not think you have ever addressed this bolded bit. If you can show me the error of that portion, maybe there is progress to be made. — Zhao

I did comment on it in what I think was my last post to you. I quote:

I could not disagree more, Zhou.

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets.

Go at this particular again. Put out your best argument.

Let's deal with it for a bit...because there is something of consequence in this part of the issue.

We can go to the rest of your post after resolving this...if it can be resolved.

Please, no more of these long drawn out responses to many different topics. Choose one comment and I'll deal with it...and then we can move on. This gets much too cumbersome this way.

— SethRy

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa


This is where you argue inductively. The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. — SethRy

I do not see how that follows at all.

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it.

You still remember I am, theistic right?

No, and I may forget. If it is important for anything you are saying, just remind me.

PossibleAaran
189

In casual conversation one can easily and reasonably say, "I know where I parked my car"; "I know the name on my birth certificate is..."; "I know that London is the capital of England"...and the like.

But saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation. — Frank Apisa


Here is what I think I disagree with. Why does saying "I know there are no Gods" or "I know there is a God" require more substantiation than "I know that London is the capital of England"? — PossibleAaran

I cannot help you with that further, Aaran.

If you think that is illogical...we'll just have to disagree.

If what you're claiming is that the mind is personal domain, under direct or indirect personal control, then how can you explain that a thought is dependant on chemical and energetic processes which happen prior to its conception?

Please, no more of these long drawn out responses to many different topics. Choose one comment and I'll deal with it...and then we can move on. This gets much too cumbersome this way. — Frank Apisa

OK. i just deleted a nice long one :grin: Not sure what to respond to if not EVERYTHING you say.

Put out your best argument. — Frank Apisa

Answer this question: Do you KNOW if there is a god?

Now answer this one: Do you THINK there is a god?

"I don't know" does NOT answer the second question. It is like answering "what is your favorite color?" with "42".

Notice if someone asked me "do you believe in "uhenthdfrteunty" I would answer, "I do not even know what that is, so of course I can't possibly believe in it. If you care to give me a definition of 'uhenthdfrteunty', then we can confirm my lack of belief or possibly find something I do believe in."

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you crafted it.

The semantics behind what you are saying, I would say is erroneous. For you are comparing the existence of two different things. An external, undiscovered race, Aliens, will be just like us — not necessarily by rationality or practice, but that we are natural, contingent beings. Another external, unseen being, God, but holding a difference that he is a supernatural, necessary being. Comparatively, God's transcendent oneness is not like that of a human's or contingent being's existence.

Simply put, for the reason that God is supernatural, his existence is beyond natural presuppositions like: atomic nuclei, content and state of matter, or if he has a respiratory system or not, he is not relative to that of a human. Humans, are presumably similar to other races: natural, specific arrangement of species, and develop life. By those premises, you can assume that external races from human discovery or humans ourselves, do exist. It's not like that of a god, that you can assert his existence because the universe is not completely examined in its entirety. You can't say 'we haven't found him yet' like that of an external race.

My specific disagreement is this: I don't see why claims about the existence of God require a larger amount of substantiation than claims (for example) about the capitals of cities. It seems to me that it is perfectly sufficient - there is nothing objectionable about it - to base a claim that God exists/doesn't exist on good but inconclusive evidence. I thought you disagreed with this. Am I mistaken? — PossibleAaran

Can you explain how you'd be justified in claiming that you know that God doesn't exist, under the strongest possible conception of God? That would be a God which makes no practical difference to what we know of the world, so there wouldn't be any evidence against the existence of God. This God wouldn't intervene in our affairs or anything, as far as we know.

I don't claim that I know that God, under this conception, doesn't exist. It is sufficient to claim that there is no reasonably justified basis to believe that God exists, and that even if God does exist, it would be trivial and make no real difference.

This is the only reason for me being, or the only sense in which I am, a weak atheist. With other conceptions of God where we're reasonably justified in saying that we know that God doesn't exist, the best example being a conception which leads to contradiction, I am a strong atheist. I am justified in saying that I know that this God doesn't exist, per the law of noncontradiction.

I am agnostic on the strongest possible conception of God. Yet this doesn't mean much. If I went around calling myself an agnostic, people would probably get the wrong idea. They'd probably think that I didn't lean more in one direction than the other. Yet I would say that, overall, I am more befitting of the term, "atheist". I do lean more in that direction. It also fits with how it is often used in common parlance, which is to call someone an atheist if they answer the question, "Do you believe in God?", with a, "No", as well as with the etymology of the word. I've even been called a militant atheist and associated with the New Atheists. I like Dawkins and Hitchens. I'm more sympathetic towards them than many others on this forum, from all sides of the debate. I also count Hume, Nietzsche, and Russell amongst my favourite philosophers.

There is no big problem in terms of what we call a position, only people who want to make it a big problem. They should be given a brief explanation of why this is so, and then largely ignored to stew in their own juice.

Can you explain how you'd be justified in claiming that you know that God doesn't exist, under the strongest possible conception of God? — S

No, I'm afraid I can't. I agree with most of what you said. I'm an agnostic about quite a lot of conceptions of God, but there are those against which there are good philosophical arguments and I am inclined to think that those Gods don't exist. I think the most pressing disagreement we have is only about Dawkins. I think Dawkins is a good scientist, but he's a philosophical amateur on his best day, and most of his attempts at Philosophy are full of basic mistakes. I find that to be true of most "New Atheist" types, which is a shame, because there are excellent atheist Philosophers who don't get anything like the same attention. I think Jordan Sobel died a while ago, but he was very good, as is Graham Oppy.

PA

If God is invisible, intangible, impossible to detect under any circumstances, will never involve itself directly or indirectly in human affairs--then why not "philosophize" about something that matters?

There is zero evidence and zero reason to provide evidence. While we're at it, I'm sure we can find a few more paranoid ramblings from ancient times and go around telling people they can't be disproved either.

If God is invisible, intangible, impossible to detect under any circumstances, will never involve itself directly or indirectly in human affairs--then why not "philosophize" about something that matters?

There is zero evidence and zero reason to provide evidence. While we're at it, I'm sure we can find a few more paranoid ramblings from ancient times and go around telling people they can't be disproved either. — whollyrolling

That's ironic. We're both doing it right now. You tell me. It's not a serious dilemma in my life. I am not in turmoil over it. I just said that it would be trivial and make no real difference. I only philosophise over it out of interest. I do that with lots of things.

Answer this question: Do you KNOW if there is a god? — ZhouBoTong

As you guessed, NO, I do not know if there are ANY GODS.

Now answer this one: Do you THINK there is a god?

NO, I do not "think" there are any gods...nor do I guess there are any gods.

I also do not "think" there are no gods...and I do not guess there are no gods.

If forced to make a guess...I will do it.

"I don't know" does NOT answer the second question. It is like answering "what is your favorite color?" with "42". — Zhou

Okay. Although for the record, my stock answer for the question "Where on the political spectrum do you fall...with extreme liberal at 1 and extreme conservative at 10?...is...

...purple.

I've used that often.

Notice if someone asked me "do you believe in "uhenthdfrteunty" I would answer, "I do not even know what that is, so of course I can't possibly believe in it. If you care to give me a definition of 'uhenthdfrteunty', then we can confirm my lack of belief or possibly find something I do believe in."

Question for you: When you use the word "believe" in conversations dealing with gods...how does a "belief" differ from "blind guess?"

SethRy
96

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa


I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you crafted it.

The semantics behind what you are saying, I would say is erroneous. For you are comparing the existence of two different things. An external, undiscovered race, Aliens, will be just like us — not necessarily by rationality or practice, but that we are natural, contingent beings. Another external, unseen being, God, but holding a difference that he is a supernatural, necessary being. Comparatively, God's transcendent oneness is not like that of a human's or contingent being's existence.

Simply put, for the reason that God is supernatural, his existence is beyond natural presuppositions like: atomic nuclei, content and state of matter, or if he has a respiratory system or not, he is not relative to that of a human. Humans, are presumably similar to other races: natural, specific arrangement of species, and develop life. By those premises, you can assume that external races from human discovery or humans ourselves, do exist. It's not like that of a god, that you can assert his existence because the universe is not completely examined in its entirety. You can't say 'we haven't found him yet' like that of an external race. — SethRy

Seth.

The thing I was asking you to explain was your comment,

"The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans."

(That was in response to my comment, "The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there.")

I do not see that explanation in your response.

We can get to this new comment of yours...but I really would like to understand why you suggest that "the ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans."

Okay. Although for the record, my stock answer for the question "Where on the political spectrum do you fall...with extreme liberal at 1 and extreme conservative at 10?...is...

...purple.

I've used that often. — Frank Apisa

I would've guessed you were a yellow. Not like a canary yellow, more of a munsell yellow. Although I best be careful, lest you angrily respond, "I am NOT a yellow! I am a PURPLE!".

The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. — Frank Apisa

That's a different counterargument for the same conclusion.

You and I can agree that the universe is ever-expanding, or infinite. The universe's infinity implies infinite resources and infinite time. If so, we can logically assume, that the chances for sentient beings outside us humans to live on planets is quite high. So out of the 'no evidence' argument that you proposed, which is as it follows;

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets. — Frank Apisa

How that argument is flawed is that you neglected the concept of perceivable infinity, which makes other sentient beings more probable to exist because of that infinity. For God, it doesn't necessarily mean hat way — for it is also probable, that his existence is not attached to matter despite his omnipresence, that he is imperceptible.

Now what I meant by inductive argument, wherein I assumed you already knew, is that I utilized the representational proportions of probability to depict the possibility of existence. For God, you certainly cannot start at 50/50 as its probability because that confuses the disparity between probability and possibility — there is no epistemic justification behind that, no value under metaphysical and epistemological territory. For the existence of aliens, you can presume that with infinity as its epistemic justification.

SethRy
97

The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. — Frank Apisa


That's a different counterargument for the same conclusion.

You and I can agree that the universe is ever-expanding, or infinite. The universe's infinity implies infinite resources and infinite time. If so, we can logically assume, that the chances for sentient beings outside us humans to live on planets is quite high. So out of the 'no evidence' argument that you proposed, which is as it follows;

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets. — Frank Apisa


How that argument is flawed is that you neglected the concept of perceivable infinity, which makes other sentient beings more probable to exist because of that infinity. For God, it doesn't necessarily mean hat way — for it is also probable, that his existence is not attached to matter despite his omnipresence, that he is imperceptible. — SethRy

I've called this to your attention before...and will do it again right now:

I am not talking about sentient life in the universe.

I am SPECIFICALLY talking about sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...right at this moment.

That is a very specific and limited venue.

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there.

So...let's go back to that.

What do you find defective in my argument?

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa

You compared that to a god, is the defective. You are correct, whether the entirety of the universe or just that limited interstice you mentioned does not contain any sentient being, it cannot logically lead to a nonexistence conclusion.

However, a comparison to that of a supernatural transcendence, is just flawed. Yes you can assert that the absence of evidence for God does not imply evidence of absence for God, and I stand with that argument for God consistently. Such differently, a transcendent being cannot be limited to resource or value, it is only whether he exists or not, thus, inductive; or argument by probability, is not logically capable to comprehend an agnostic view towards a god. For the reason that it is also possible that God cannot be present conceivably in the universe, the need for thorough examination or by probability can just not work for his existence.

And since you dislike using specific terms, I do remember your viewpoint towards the existence of God.

SethRy
98

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa


You compared that to a god, is the defective. You are correct, whether the entirety of the universe or just that limited interstice you mentioned does not contain any sentient being, it cannot logically lead to a nonexistence conclusion. — SethRy

I am NOT making such a comparison.

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS.

Or at very least, NO inference should be drawn from the fact that there is no evidence...that perforce it does not exist. Other evidence may lead there.

However, a comparison to that of a supernatural transcendence, is just flawed. Yes you can assert that the absence of evidence for God does not imply evidence of absence for God, and I stand with that argument for God consistently. Such differently, a transcendent being cannot be limited to resource or value, it is only whether he exists or not, thus, inductive; or argument by probability, is not logically capable to comprehend an agnostic view towards a god. For the reason that it is also possible that God cannot be present conceivably in the universe, the need for thorough examination or by probability can just not work for his existence. — Seth

There is nothing "flawed" about my reasoning on this issue.

And since you dislike using specific terms, I do remember your viewpoint towards the existence of God. — Seth

Horse shit!

You remember no such thing...because I most assuredly do not have an inclination toward "at least one god exists"...or toward "no gods exist." Not in any way whatsoever.

Whatever you think you remember...is your imagination at work.

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa

That's only warranted if:

(a) It's not impossible or incoherent that the thing in question might exist,
(b) It's plausible that the thing in question might exist, and
(c) There's no evidence that the thing in question doesn't exist.

The notion of gods has problems with (a), (b) and (c). Some other things that we have no evidence for don't have any of (a), (b) or (c) against them. For those things, it's reasonable to answer that you don't know.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa


That's only warranted if:

(a) It's not impossible or incoherent that the thing in question might exist, — Terrapin Station

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist?

C'mon!

In any case, I welcome any evidence you have that it is impossible or incoherent that gods can exist.

(b) It's plausible that the thing in question might exist, and — Terrapin

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. That is why the issue has been debated throughout history as often as it has. We simply do not know which it is.

(c) There's no evidence that the thing in question doesn't exist. — Terrapin

I do not follow that thought.

It interests me but is kinda convoluted. Could you (would you) flesh it out a bit?

The notion of gods has problems with (a), (b) and (c). — Terrapin

I disagree that the notion of gods has problems with (a) or (b). I am not sure of what you are saying in (c).

Some other things that we have no evidence for don't have any of (a), (b) or (c) against them. For those things, it's reasonable to answer that you don't know. — Terrapin

Agreed.

AND I think the only logical default point on the issue of the existence or non-existence of any gods...

...is I DO NOT KNOW.

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist? — Frank Apisa

If we're talking about something that has at least some nonphysical aspects, yes. And if we're not, I don't know what we'd be talking about. The alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it.

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa

No, it isn't. A fortiori because the concept of nonphysical existents is incoherent. But there are a number of other absurd aspects to it, too.

I do not follow that thought. — Frank Apisa

In other words, in the case of a god, all the evidence we have so far shows no god to exist.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist? — Frank Apisa


If we're talking about something that has at least some nonphysical aspects, yes. And if we're not, I don't know what we'd be talking about. The alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it. — Terrapin Station

Are you saying that ideas do not exist?

Stop with that.

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa


No, it isn't. A fortiori because the concept of nonphysical existents is incoherent. But there are a number of other absurd aspects to it, too. — Terrapin

YOU are not the determinant of what can or cannot exist. You are dogmatically proclaiming that it is impossible for a god to exist...in a discussion about whether at least one god exists or not.

I'm sure you object when someone proclaims that at least one god MUST exist.

I do not follow that thought. — Frank Apisa


In other words, in the case of a god, all the evidence we have so far shows no god to exist.

There is NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that shows that no gods exist.

Not one tiny piece.

Cite what you consider to be the single most important piece of evidence that shows that "no gods exist"...and I will show it to be worthless.