substantivalism
85
Yes, most philosophers.
Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.
— Frank Apisa
If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum? — substantivalism
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.
No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.
Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.
No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.
The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.
If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is? — Frank Apisa
substantivalism
86
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.
No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.
Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.
No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.
The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.
If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?
— Frank Apisa
What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.
You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum. — substantivalism
I didn't say god...I said gods.
I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.
Neither do you.
But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.
You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.
There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question. — Frank Apisa
I've given mine. Here it is again:
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 at least one god is 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.
You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.
Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing. — Frank Apisa
No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing — substantivalism
I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism
Agnosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist.
Ignosticism= I don't know if God exists or doesn't exist. — 3017amen
Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH
The obvious pitfall of Ignosticism is that it's tantamount to arguing straw men. And that is because you arrived at the conclusion of ambivalence about God's existence through an understanding of God's attributes. So you've already defined what God is... .
Otherwise tell us how you arrived at the conclusion of embracing or believing in the concept of Ignosticism? — 3017amen
How much does 10,000 cubic miles of space weigh? — Hippyhead
My point is not that space exists, or doesn't exist, but rather that it occupies a realm outside of the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm. As you point out, space has some characteristics of existence. And it also some some characteristics of non-existence, such as no weight, no mass, no shape, no form, no color, invisible etc. — Hippyhead
What typically happens on this topic is that posters will struggle to shove space in to either the exists or not-exists category, because we don't like the idea that our conceptual frameworks might not model reality. Reality doesn't care. It's not bound by human concepts, which are after all immeasurably small in comparison to the reality they are attempting to describe. — Hippyhead
The fact that the overwhelming majority of reality does not fit in to the simplistic "exists or not" paradigm the God debate is built upon doesn't prove anything about gods one way or another. My point is only that this mismatch should cause us to challenge the question with the same enthusiasm as we challenge the competing answers. — Hippyhead
If the god question is fatally flawed, the entire competing answers game could be described as a pointless waste of time, and people of reason might be interested in that possibility. — Hippyhead
I see. Two arguments. Consider your quoted definition within the context of your participation in this thread.
1.How would you translate the thread title into incoherence?
2. What incoherence contributed to your conclusion of ignosticism?
I'll answer the questions for you; they weren't incoherent at all. No? — 3017amen
wasn't incoherence that contributed to my TENATIVE position of ignosticism but rather that you or others perhaps fail to give a definition of god or a definition that doesn't remain coherently understandable. — substantivalism
Great! Then it sounds more like agnosticism because you understand certain concepts of a God, you just don't take any position on it, or do you? — 3017amen
Seems contradictive and paradoxical based upon your participation in this thread, because if one's ambivalence drives that decision-making, what in turn would compel a person to participate in something unknown? — 3017amen
It also seems like both belief systems are based on ambivalence and curiosity or wonderment yet neither of those cognitive exercises convey any real Darwinian survival advantages. And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen
Or is it more like I'm curious so let me engage in discussion which would help make my mind up? Or let me engage in discussion but I will always be ambivalent anyway?
Does that sound right? — 3017amen
Okay you're changing your position then. You're saying that it's coherent it's just that you are undecided. That's fine but that's not what you said. — 3017amen
And so I don't get it, an ignostic/agnostic should not be participating in this thread at all, should they? — 3017amen
You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism
Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it. — substantivalism
180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa I understand what you've written over and over ad nauseam, Frank. I'm asking a straight-forward question which you either can or can't answer (or will show why it's not a valid question): Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?
If so, tell me/us what that is. — 180 Proof
jorndoe
1k
There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession? — jorndoe
180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Okay. Just checking. You're only able to repeat yourself like a dumb parrot and thereby, also like a dumb parrot, unable to explain whatever that is you're parroting. So it's reasonable, even fair, to conclude, Frank, that what you call "my agnosticism" is wholly subjective just like e.g. babytalk or glossalalia. As I've said many times: if I can't engage in informative dialectic, then I seek only to expose and not bother trying to persuade :point: Your stuffed parrot's showing, Mr. Apisa. :sweat: — 180 Proof
Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself. — Frank Apisa
3017amen
2.2k
Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.
— Frank Apisa
180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.