But then I explained that facts are not something "elevated." Facts are states of affairs, and the state of affairs that's apparent in the world is that there is no God. — Terrapin Station

because - - - - - --

that is just one more declarative statement without support -

what i imagine you are saying here is a noseeum argument - " i have looked around and I don't see God - god is not " this is a reason based argument - it may be a reasonable argument that God does not exist - but certainly does not support a conclusion that as a matter of fact god does not exist. For your point to do that you would have to argue that you are aware of all the possible states of affairs in the universe, you have examined all of them, and there is no God .

maybe easier if i make this point about unicorns.

P1 - it is not a matter of fact that unicorns exist on earth
P2 - it is not a matter of fact that unicorns to not exist on earth

while i imagine both you and i would agree the arguments overwhelmingly support the belief that unicorns do not exist - it is still possible in some jungle somewhere yet to be looked at there is a unicorn there.

the argument there are no unicorns if reasonable - but it is not a fact.

being able to experience all of time as a whole, — AJJ

I can't make any sense of that, because time is simply motion or change. So one, if there's no change or motion we don't have time after all, and two, I can't make sense of what it would be to experience something where there's no motion or change--I could have no change in my thoughts, for example. I can't make sense of experiencing something where that's not an active process.

that is just one more declarative statement without support - — Rank Amateur

Right--I can't imagine why you'd not say that in response to anything I'd say, because I have no idea what your criteria are to count as support rather than counting as a declarative statement without support.

For Q to count as support of P rather than just being another declarative statement without support (as P was), Q needs to . . . to what? What are the criteria?

Right--I can't imagine why you'd not say that in response to anything I'd say, because I have no idea what your criteria are to count as support rather than counting as a declarative statement without support. — Terrapin Station

because you have yet to supply any reason whatsoever behind you statement - i even tried to do it for you on the last one. You need to support your statements or they are just opinion

my P3 stands - It is not a fact that God is not - until you can make a reasoned argument that it is a matter of fact that god is not - this is how argument works.

do you have a complete and reasoned argument against P3 - if not allow it

because you have yet to supply any reason whatsoever behind you statement - i even tried to do it for you on the last one. You need to support your statements or they are just opinion — Rank Amateur

That would imply that you have criteria for what counts as reasons.

So, for example, "I believe I'm Napoleon because I ate a taco last night." Is "because I ate a taco last night" a reason there or not?

That would imply that you have criteria for what counts as reasons. — Terrapin Station

supply just one and I will let you know.

wait - take that back - you have supplied one - - no empirical evidence - which i addressed, that is how it works.

Right. So one reason that we know that it's a fact that there is no god is that there's no empirical evidence at all that there is a god. Now, you'd say that's not a reason, it's simply a "declarative statement without support."

So that means it doesn't meet some criterion you have for a sentence, Q, to count as a reason for or to count as support of another sentence, P. We need to figure out what your criteria are.

second aside - I have no clue what so ever is so hard about an acknowledgement that there is no knowledge that we can elevate to fact to say that God is or God is not. That it is not in the realm of science - it is a matter of philosophy of reason - not fact - no clue why that has generated such argument.

I actually don’t know enough about God’s timelessness/immutability to argue about this. But my initial point stands; he’s not anything at all like an orbiting rabbit.

To be clear, it was inquired that, given an dedicated understanding of a predicate of a logical proposition (matter of fact), could it be argued that breaking down a proposition with a compound subject (a thing is or is not) into a single subject proposition (a thing is) and its negation (a thing is not), have the strictly equivalent degree of validity?

I’m suggesting it cannot be expected that one formal instance of understanding transfers unequivocably to separated propositions. In this case, the proposition constructed with a compounded subject and its predicate is an analytic true statement, whereas the separated propositions both require a formal synthesis in order to even be possibly true. Thus, the same understanding cannot justify all three at the same time.

I’m saying you threw a metaphysical monkey wrench into an otherwise respectable dialectic by forcing a co-conversant to argue from an irrational position.

Nevertheless.......carry on!!!!!

Right. So one reason that we know that it's a fact that there is no god is that there's no empirical evidence at all that there is a god. Now, you'd say that's not a reason, it's simply a "declarative statement without support."

So that means it doesn't meet some criterion you have for a sentence, Q, to count as a reason for or to count as support of another sentence, P. We need to figure out what your criteria are. — Terrapin Station

No - that was a argument - if you remember way back to the first time - my argument back was - the lack of empirical evidence is a very good reasonable argument that god does not exist. It does not however make it a fact. As an example - there was no empirical evidence at one time for the atom - until there was.

next

I’m suggesting it cannot be expected that one formal instance of understanding transfers unequivocably to separated propositions. In this case, the proposition constructed with a compounded subject and its predicate is an analytic true statement, whereas the separated propositions both require a formal synthesis in order to even be possibly true. Thus, the same understanding cannot justify all three at the same time. — Mww

I agree completely with that statement

I’m saying you threw a metaphysical monkey wrench into an otherwise respectable dialectic by forcing a co-conversant to argue from an irrational position. — Mww

If you go back to the beginning I never propositioned all 3 - all three were thrown in by those trying to argue against my 2 propositions.

If you can somehow help us out of the morass about what is or is not fact i would welcome your view.

Yeah, categorical error, or error of equivocation. Dunno. Just didn’t sound right.

‘Nuff said?

No - that was a argument - if you remember way back to the first time - my argument back was - the lack of empirical evidence is a very good reasonable argument that god does not exist. It does not however make it a fact. As an example - there was no empirical evidence at one time for the atom - until there was. — Rank Amateur

I already responded to this. Do you withhold judgment on everything conceivable that there's no empirical evidence for, no matter how crazy the idea is?

I already responded to this. Do you withhold judgment on everything conceivable that there's no empirical evidence for, no matter how crazy the idea is? — Terrapin Station

I would say the only thing factual that can be said on the lack of empirical evidence, is that it is a lack or empirical evidence.

there is however almost limitless empirical evidence of things that there was no empirical evidence for, until there was.

I would say the only thing factual that can be said on the lack of empirical evidence, is that it is a lack or empirical evidence. — Rank Amateur

Sure. So you wouldn't say that it's a fact that there's no easter bunny, for example?

please now sum up where we are on your objections to my argument

on P3 - what is your current objection, and its basis
onP,4-7 I think you have already allowed - but I am not sure

where those your only objections ?

really would like to stay in the framework of the argument if we can

Sure. So you wouldn't say that it's a fact that there's no easter bunny, for example? — Terrapin Station

i would say if we can agree on what a bunny is - and not go off into some definition argument
and we can say we know something factual about the capabilities of such bunnies
I would say it is a fact that there is no such bunny that flies around the world filling baskets in houses
around the world on Easter Sunday

But with the Easter bunny notion, that's not even incoherent. There's just no evidence for it. So it doesn't seem consistent for you to not say that it's not a fact, there's just no empirical evidence for it--until there is.

But with the Easter bunny notion, that's not even incoherent. There's just no evidence for it. So it doesn't seem consistent for you to not say that it's not a fact, there's just no empirical evidence for it--until there is. — Terrapin Station

no - as I said it is a fact that such things as bunnies exist, it is a fact we know the capabilities of these things we call bunnies, it is a fact that the these capabilities do not include filling baskets around the world on Easter Sunday.

but let us please please get back on track - i am being very generous in entertain all these diversions.

you contest P3 - " it is not a fact that god is not" -

there is only one way and one way only to contest that point - make a case that it IS A FACT that God is not. So far you have made one case, which i believe I have countered effectively. Please note there is no burden on me on this proposition to prove that it is a fact that God is, that is not the proposition.

await your back on track - or concede the point please

Not interested in helping anybody out......usually on lending a helping hand, one comes away missing some fingers.

My view.....because you did ask.....on the syllogism on pg3 and pg8:

It would hard for me to concur that the conclusion follows from the argument because the conclusion says....
“..Theism, as defined......(once), Theism, as defined....(twice).....
.......but theism isn’t so defined anywhere in the list of premises. P1 says theist, defined as. If the inclusion of “theism” into the conclusion was meant to be rhetorical, insofar as it should be accepted as prima facia understanding derived from P1, fine. Shoulda said so, seems like. Nonetheless, I can say without hesitation I agree with the statements stipulated by the conclusion but not that it *IS* itself, a conclusion to a logical argument.

I’m not so sure a series of antinomies qualifies as a logical argument anyway. One premise says this, the next premise says not this, when it should be, one premise says this and the next premise says that. Any cognitively intelligible statement has its own negation given immediately, as a matter of course; that’s just the way the human thinking system works. So it’s irrelevant to premise what reason already gives necessarily.

I’m a serious reductionist. For me, defining what a “fact” is, even to qualify its limits, doesn’t say anything about the altogether tentative nature of human knowledge which are also generally the same limits placed on the “facts”. Something is needed to prevent falsification of the premise because it lacks the conditions of time.

P1, 4,5,6,7 are acceptable stand-alone affirmative judgements, but as logical premises......ehhhhhh, it’s your show. Treat ‘em as you wish.

.and theism isn’t so defined anywhere in the list of premises — Mww

it was in P1 I believe - it was defined as a belief in a supernatural entity

In hindsight I would have been better of just having a proposition that the existence of God is not a fact. instead of P2 - P3 -

I’m a serious reductionist. For me, defining what a “fact” is, even to qualify its limits, doesn’t say anything about the altogether tentative nature of human knowledge which are also generally the same limits placed on the “facts”. Something is needed to prevent falsification of the premise because it lacks the conditions of time. — Mww

agree - would be happy to amend it to our existing knowledge at this time.

thanks the help - watch your fingers

no - as I said it is a fact that such things as bunnies exist, it is a fact we know the capabilities of these things we call bunnies, it is a fact that the these capabilities do not include filling baskets around the world on Easter Sunday. — Rank Amateur

So in other words, the idea is that given that you're okay saying it's a fact that there's no x on an absence of evidence of it even when the idea of an x is coherent (for example, the Easter bunny), it's even stronger to say that there's no x on an absence of evidence when the idea of the x isn't coherent (as with gods).

(And this is the argument for P3 being false. It's not a proof per se. Empirical claims are not provable period, including "There is no Easter bunny," including "I have a refrigerator in my kitchen," etc.)

So in other words, the idea is that given that you're okay saying it's a fact that there's no x on an absence of evidence of it even when the idea of an x is coherent (for example, the Easter bunny), it's even stronger to say that there's no x on an absence of evidence when the idea of the x isn't coherent (as with gods). — Terrapin Station

no I am saying there IS EVIDENCE, scientific evidence, that we know what bunnies are. I am also saying there is scientific evidence that we know the capabilities of bunnies. I am saying as fact that there is scientific evidence that the ability to fill Easter baskets around the world on Easter is outside these capabilities. therefor no Easter bunny.

This is not the no-seeum argument you were making before - there is lots of empirical evidence about such things as we call bunnies, and their capabilities. Wouldn't you agree?

if you would like, you can make a supernatural description of something you call an Easter bunny, and depending on how you describe its actions or capabilities I may have to allow it as outside fact, and in the realm of reason. But it would have nothing at all to do with what we scientifically know as bunnies or their capabilities.

What is meaning? It is some sort of a feeling that drives us. When we feel it there is nothing to explain, the feeling is the whole meaning, the 'why' we are doing what we do. And when we don't feel it it's like there is no meaning and no amount of rationality can make us find one.

Various people are driven by different things. The desire to make one's children happy, that can be the meaning of one's life. Or the desire to achieve such or such thing. Then we might ask in the end what's the point? But we need to feel it to see the point.

The beliefs we hold have an impact on what gives us meaning also. Meaning is subjective to a great extent and I don't think you would find one that applies to everyone. You have to find yours.

How would there even be anything "supernatural"?