Devans99
1.2k

Okay...so you agree..."I do not know" is the answer — Frank Apisa


No: I think the answer is that there probably are aliens.

Probability is how we judge the merit of inductive truth, how we differentiate between weak and strong inductive truth. This is a more refined approach than guessing (but if you take a guess, probably your subconscious uses statistics anyway so there is no escaping probability). — Devans99

Devans...what is it with you?

I did not ask if there are "aliens."

I asked if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol.

I have now repeated that 4 or 5 times...and you still avoid it by answering something else.

What is the problem?

The answer to my question is obvious. The ONLY logical answer is, "I do not know."

Why not give it?

Oh, my...you know exactly how I'd respond...and you did not want that response. — Frank Apisa

Is there a parrot nearby?

Grow some balls. — Frank Apisa

You've already said that. Like I said: predictable.

ArguingWAristotleTiff
3.4k
If someone can point to "God" and I can see him/her, I am willing to entertain believing again. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

If you could see a god...you would not have to guess...or "believe" as you put it.

I asked if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. — Frank Apisa

The answer is 'yes, probably'. Not 'I don't know' because we have just discussed inductive evidence in favour of the proposition.

If you could see a god...you would not have to guess...or "believe" as you put it. — Frank Apisa

Are we headed towards a full circle on this line of reasoning?

Devans99
1.2k

I asked if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. — Frank Apisa


The answer is 'yes, probably'. Not 'I don't know' because we have just discussed inductive evidence in favour of the proposition. — Devans99

That is as absurd as the answer, "No, probably."

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself.

But, I can see that you are not what I supposed you were.

It takes a good deal more ethical wherewithal to acknowledge an "I do not know" than you apparently possess.

No problem. I will continue to comment.

You are confusing being agnostic with being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The difference is that someone who is purely agnostic tends to take a neutral stand regarding whether or not God exists, because they do not want to take either side of the argument when they don't know either way. — Maureen

The original meaning of agnostic - a term coined by Henry "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley - is precisely as you say: someone whose position is that they don't know (as opposed to gnostics who do). Of course, Huxley had a lot more to say on the subject than just repeating his thesis over and over and disparaging anyone who might disagree as stubborn, stupid or dishonest.

Are we headed towards a full circle on this line of reasoning? — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Nope.

Just stating something I see as obvious.

2 + 2 + 4 in base ten. I do not have to do any guessing about that.

If you saw something that you could positively identify as "a GOD"...you would not have to do any guessing about it. If you had to guess...then you have not seen something that you could positively identify as "a GOD."

SophistiCat
722

You are confusing being agnostic with being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. The difference is that someone who is purely agnostic tends to take a neutral stand regarding whether or not God exists, because they do not want to take either side of the argument when they don't know either way. — Maureen


The original meaning of agnostic - a term coined by Henry "Darwin's Bulldog" Huxley - is precisely as you say: someone whose position is that they don't know (as opposed to gnostics who do). Of course, Huxley had a lot more to say on the subject than just repeating his thesis over and over and disparaging anyone who might disagree as stubborn, stupid or dishonest. — SophistiCat

Correct.

Actually Thomas Huxley, among other things, wanted to distinguish himself from the theists and atheists...who seemed to be saying "I know there is a GOD" or "I know there are no gods"...or who were expressing a "belief" in one or the other direction.

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. — Frank Apisa

Insert sun-circling teapot in place of gods and see if you still think it's reasonable.

Okay.

I do not know if a sun-circling teapot exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect a sun-circling teapot CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of a sun-circling teapot is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that a sun-circling teapot MUST EXIST...that sun-circling teapots 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.

Seems fine to me.

Are you saying it is impossible for a sun-circling teapot to exist...or that a sun-circling teapot has to exist?

I'm saying I'm very much justified in saying it doesn't exist given the lack of evidence that it does.

NKBJ
709
↪Frank Apisa


I'm saying I'm very much justified in saying it doesn't exist given the lack of evidence that it does. — NKBJ

Fine. That is allowed.

And, if you do not care about logic...it makes sense.

There are lots of things for which there is a lack of evidence...but that may exist.

Same thing goes for gods.

Anyway...wife and I are off to Princeton for dinner. See you folk tomorrow.

And, if you do not care about logic...it makes sense. — Frank Apisa

:roll:

Well, you go off to Princeton and make sure that you watch out for those goblins and chimera and vampires you don't know don't exist on your way!

When you come back:
Knowledge is defined as "justified, true belief." I believe there are no gods. It's justified for me to claim there are no gods. And if there are no gods then my belief is true as well.

I might be wrong. It's always possible to be wrong. But I neither believe that I am wrong, nor would I be justified in believing myself to be wrong. So I am fully justified in claiming to know that there are no gods.

Until there is any evidence for gods (or any of the mysterious things you're nebulously pointing to that "might" exist), thus providing any justification whatsoever for the other side, I am correct in claiming to know there are no gods.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or in this case, non-existent until proven otherwise.

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself. — Frank Apisa

With regard to God, I haven't seen any reasonable argument for making any assessment on probability whatsoever. And 50/50 is a probability assessment.

Of course, Huxley had a lot more to say on the subject than just repeating his thesis over and over and disparaging anyone who might disagree as stubborn, stupid or dishonest. — SophistiCat

Nods head.

"No: I think the answer is that there probably are aliens.

Probability is how we judge the merit of inductive truth, how we differentiate between weak and strong inductive truth. This is a more refined approach than guessing (but if you take a guess, probably your subconscious uses statistics anyway so there is no escaping probability). "

i'm stealing this and putting it in my journal.

"Knowledge is defined as "justified, true belief." I believe there are no gods. It's justified for me to claim there are no gods. And if there are no gods then my belief is true as well."

^This is actually an inaccurate definition, since nothing at all is known for certain. Even scientific "facts" such as the nature of the earth's rotation are not known with 100 percent certainty to be true. With that said, it may indeed be justified for you to claim that there are no Gods, but there is still a possibility that there are Gods nonetheless. I know a man on youtube who is an atheist but will even attest to the fact that Gods may exist, and I feel like this man is highly intelligent.

This is actually an inaccurate definition, since nothing at all is known for certain. — Maureen

It's a considerably better definition than knowledge as certainty, because under that definition we would know next to nothing, yet we know so much. Why are you even bringing up certainty? How does that help?

Even scientific "facts" such as the nature of the earth's rotation are not known with 100 percent certainty to be true. — Maureen

Right, but they're known nevertheless, which was the point, I believe.

With that said, it may indeed be justified for you to claim that there are no Gods, but there is still a possibility that there are Gods nonetheless. — Maureen

And...? Who do you think has suggested that it's impossible? I mean, it could be impossible. Unless I've missed it, you haven't even made it clear what exactly you're talking about, so how can I know that it doesn't lead to contradiction?

If I asked you what you meant by "Gods", and you replied, "Gods are beings which blar-de-blar...", and something about that description implied a contradiction, then it would be reasonable to conclude that Gods, as described, cannot exist.

Also, you are not correct in claiming to know that there are no Gods if there are indeed Gods in spite of the absence of evidence. It would be like if there was no grass anywhere on earth today, but there were texts from thousands of years ago that told of a "robust colored shrub" that covered a great deal of the ground in many places. You could claim to know that this "robust colored shrub" did not exist since it is no longer present and therefore there is no evidence that it ever existed, but you would not be correct in claiming to know that this shrub did not exist if the shrub did indeed exist in spite of the absence of evidence. This is no different empirically than claiming to know that that there are no Gods just because there is not any evidence; if you can claim to know that there are no Gods simply because there is no evidence for their existence, then you can also assume that the theoretical "robust colored shrub" did not exist if there is no evidence that it existed, even if it did exist.

It depends on what you mean by God, whether or not I am prepared to claim he definitely doesn't exist or not. The Christian God is not just any old God, there are lots of specific claims surrounding his existence and what's he done and what he is. It is different to say I cannot say I know that there are no Gods.

Is God more than just his existence? What if I deny his character, his history, his nature as they are known by Christians? There are many things about the Christian God which either have been disproven or could be argued to be impossible, such as his moral objectivity. You could argue with interpretations of his nature like that he is benevolent and just as well. So "A" God could exist but I am happy to disagree that God could exist as he is described by Christians or Muslims.

NKBJ
711

And, if you do not care about logic...it makes sense. — Frank Apisa


:roll:

Well, you go off to Princeton and make sure that you watch out for those goblins and chimera and vampires you don't know don't exist on your way! — NKBJ

As I said...if you do not care about logic...what you are saying makes sense.

NKBJ
711
↪Frank Apisa


When you come back:
Knowledge is defined as "justified, true belief." I believe there are no gods. It's justified for me to claim there are no gods. And if there are no gods then my belief is true as well.

I might be wrong. It's always possible to be wrong. But I neither believe that I am wrong, nor would I be justified in believing myself to be wrong. So I am fully justified in claiming to know that there are no gods.

Until there is any evidence for gods (or any of the mysterious things you're nebulously pointing to that "might" exist), thus providing any justification whatsoever for the other side, I am correct in claiming to know there are no gods.

Innocent until proven guilty. Or in this case, non-existent until proven otherwise. — NKBJ

All that "believing" nonsense. You just cannot call your blind guesses...blind guesses. You have to call them "believing."

You ought to figure out why you do that.

Anyway...you do make sense...providing, of course, that you logic out the window.

S
9k

Anyone pretending they can make a probability estimate in either direction...is (in the vernacular) playing with him/herself. — Frank Apisa


With regard to God, I haven't seen any reasonable argument for making any assessment on probability whatsoever. And 50/50 is a probability assessment. — S

Correct...which is why I would not make it.

I merely say that I do not know.

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 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.

Correct...which is why I would not make it.

I merely say that I do not know. — Frank Apisa

Ah, okay, so you've changed your stance. You've scrapped the 50/50 thing. :up:

(By the way, I would strongly warn you against spamming the forum. If you keep that up, I predict you'll end up being banned).

Ah, okay, so you've changed your stance. You've scrapped the 50/50 thing — S

I think the question 'is there a God?' is not a 50/50 proposition.

But the question 'was the universe created?' is a 50/50 proposition.

I think the question 'is there a God?' is not a 50/50 proposition. — Devans99

Okay.

But the question 'was the universe created?' is a 50/50 proposition. — Devans99

And what's your argument for that? The last time we got this far, you refused to present one.

God doesn't even pass the test of sense, let alone existence. You don't have to wonder weather a mistake of grammar actually exists or not.

If you toss a coin 100 times, would you predict:

- All heads
- All tails
- 50/50

It's the 3rd. The question 'was the universe created?' is of the same nature - boolean answer, no reason to suspect a non-normal distribution in the answer, so 50/50 is the correct probability to assign.