If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. — substantivalism
Hippyhead
127
If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it.
— substantivalism
Now you're getting it. The "does god exist" question doesn't model reality very well. — Hippyhead
The vast majority of the time that question seeks a simple yes/no answer. The example of space illustrates that reality is rather more complicated than such a simplistic yes/no, exists or not paradigm. And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead
Or, we of course have the option to continue to endlessly repeat the same old arguments for another 500 years in order to arrive at a destination we already inhabit.
Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about — Frank Apisa
Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence. — Frank Apisa
Hippyhead
130
Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about
— Frank Apisa
Agreed, much better philosophically, but seen as much worse by all those whose personal identity depends on them having an answer which is superior to somebody else's answer. So let's address that agenda, given that it tends to dominate philosophy forums.
The theist gets to pretend they are superior to atheists, and atheists get to pretend they are superior to theists. In both cases, the pretender can only position themselves above a limited number of people.
The agnostic however can pretend they are superior to BOTH theists AND atheists. From a purely ego calculation point of view, which is what's underway most of the time on philosophy forums, the agnostic position is clearly more logical, as it delivers the fantasy superiority experience much more efficiently. — Hippyhead
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen
For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like. — 3017amen
Hippyhead
130
Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence.
— Frank Apisa
I've already been thinking about it for over 20 years. Your turn! :-)
— Hippyhead
No offense, but you've not actually addressed my claim at all, but just further fueled the Agnostic Holy War against the theist and atheist infidels. :-) — Hippyhead
But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen
No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent. — EricH
Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH
Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God. — EricH
180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa I can't answer my own question because my question does not apply to my position on theism - UNLIKE YOU, I am not claiming to be an agnostic - and, in fact, questions your self-professed "agnosticism"; therefore, THE ONLY RELEVANT ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS YOURS, Frank, but apparently, thus far, YOU are either too frightened or too ignorant or too disingenous to answer.
Let me rephrase this QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT YOUR POSITION in a way that anyone who's not even as 'smart' as YOU could easily answer:
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof
tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof
Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically." — Frank Apisa
If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen
Jesus was known to be part God. — 3017amen
What do you mean by the word "God"? — EricH
180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof
Hippyhead
137
Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically."
— Frank Apisa
Yes, it's been a long investigation for sure. What this long investigation has revealed is that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything. We seem to agree on this.
When thousands of years of investigation led by some of the greatest minds among us fails to reach the goal of delivering a credible answer, it seems reasonable to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. That's what I'm attempting to do.
One of the assumptions of the God debate, that nearly everyone on all sides agrees on, is that the goal of the investigation should be to deliver an answer, a knowing, a concept, a mental symbol, which accurately reflects the real world it is attempting to describe. Even agnostics agree with this goal, they just don't feel it has been reached.
What if the assumption that we should be seeking an answer is wrong? That might explain why the longest investigation in human history has failed. Maybe the answer seeking methodology which we've all just assumed to be correct should be set aside and replaced with other ways of approaching the god topic.
Before someone types "like what?" please first answer the following.
1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?
2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?
3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested? — Hippyhead
"Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless." — Frank Apisa
Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here? — Frank Apisa
I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing. — Frank Apisa
I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense. — Frank Apisa
I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position. — Frank Apisa
I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T. — Frank Apisa
Hippyhead
139
Ok Frank, thanks for playing. Well if you feel you have an answer, or a method of finding one, then you don't need an alternative. Go for it, and good luck. — Hippyhead
And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead
I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange. — 3017amen
The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. — Frank Apisa
If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen
A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen
That's correct, and history has recorded same! — 3017amen
Until a definition is given or context, which if were to have read the rest of his post he does note that, but when a definition (coherent one) and context is given then we can move on from discussing "god" to discussing god. From "what is go?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism. — substantivalism
What is this god you speak of? — substantivalism
But how do you support that jesus is god. What was you definition of god again? This is literally the easiest then to do so you will definitely do it in your next reply for everyone to then move on. — substantivalism
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.