NKBJ
718

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. — Frank Apisa


Again, thanks for agreeing that I make sense!

You don't really provide an argument or anuthing here except trying to say I'm illogical. But I'll still give you an example of how you can know something doesn't exist:

You know how many hands you have. It's probably two, barring special circumstances. You know you don't have three hands. You can search up and down your body and not find a third hand. You have zero proof of a third hand. But you do have a lot of lack of evidence in favor of a third hand. You're perfectly justified in claiming you KNOW you have two hands and no third.

Anyone who tells you (or me) it's illogical to know you don't have a third hand has very simply lost touch with reality. — NKBJ

The fact that you can make a thing work for one thing...does not mean it works universally.

In any case, there is no problem with you making a blind guess that no gods exist.

Maureen
13
↪Frank Apisa
"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 me if am wrong... — Maureen

You are wrong.

... but it sounds like you are just admitting that you don't know whether or not God exists. So is there a reason why you can't just admit this without an explanation? Keep in mind that if I had written this post and I had simply said "nobody will admit that they don't know if God exists," this would sound like I was just making an assumption that nobody knows if God exists without anything to base it on. Therefore I had to explain that there may be every reason to believe that God does not exist, but that God may still exist even in spite of this, so therefore nobody knows if God does or does not exist. Otherwise it wold sound like I was just saying that nobody knows if God exists just because I wanted to believe this, not because there is an actual legitimate reason why nobody knows this like the reason that I explained.

I do not speak of "God" whatever or whomever you mean by that.

I speak of the existence of gods...or the non-existence of gods.

Either no gods exist...or at least one god exists.

I do not know which it is...and I am adult enough to simply acknowledge that I do not.

Haha. Alright, calm down, bruv. There's no need to shout. I probably got you mixed up with Devans99 because you both have light green avatars and incessantly repeat yourselves.

The fact that you can make a thing work for one thing...does not mean it works universally. — Frank Apisa

If I can do it for one thing proves it's possible to be done and so there's no reason not to apply it to gods. At least, you haven't supplied one aside from loose and unsubstantiated claims of illogic.

Just saying "this is illogical" doesn't make it so.

S
9k
↪Frank Apisa
Haha. Alright, calm down, bruv. There's no need to shout. I probably got you mixed up with Devans99 because you both have light green avatars and incessantly repeat yourselves. — S

Okay.

I was over the top with the response.

I apologize.

NKBJ
719

The fact that you can make a thing work for one thing...does not mean it works universally. — Frank Apisa


If I can do it for one thing proves it's possible to be done and so there's no reason not to apply it to gods. At least, you haven't supplied one aside from loose and unsubstantiated claims of illogic.

Just saying "this is illogical" doesn't make it so. — NKBJ

Actually, I said what you proposed made sense...

...it just that logic has to be disposed of for that to be the case.

I've shown you why your reasoning is defective, but you apparently want to insist.

I've shown you why your reasoning is defective, but you apparently want to insist — Frank Apisa

Ditto :kiss:

NKBJ
720

I've shown you why your reasoning is defective, but you apparently want to insist — Frank Apisa — NKBJ

Egads...you've also shown yourself why your reasoning is defective?

Never woulda thunk it.

Egads...you've also shown yourself why your reasoning is defective?

Never woulda thunk it. — Frank Apisa

By your own logic you can't "prove" my reasoning is defective.

NKBJ
721

Egads...you've also shown yourself why your reasoning is defective?

Never woulda thunk it. — Frank Apisa


By your own logic you can't "prove" my reasoning is defective. — NKBJ

Really?

And let's hear your case for that.

You may be right...although I doubt it.

If you are, I will acknowledge it.

Really?

And let's hear your case for that.

You may be right...although I doubt it.

If you are, I will acknowledge it. — Frank Apisa

Ah, but (again, by your logic) you can't know that I'm right. You also can't know that I'm wrong. Absent any way to know either way, you are eternally suspended in an agnostic limbo.

NKBJ
722

Really?

And let's hear your case for that.

You may be right...although I doubt it.

If you are, I will acknowledge it. — Frank Apisa


Ah, but (again, by your logic) you can't know that I'm right. You also can't know that I'm wrong. Absent any way to know either way, you are eternally suspended in an agnostic limbo. — NKBJ

That is the worst description of what I have been saying I have ever heard.

What makes you think I cannot know you are right or wrong?

Using your exact logic you would be bound to:

"I do not know if the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect exists or not;
I see no reason to suspect the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect MUST EXIST...that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect 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."

So yeah, your logic leads to the conclusion that you can't know and can't meaningfully guess at whether I know that there is no God.

(Yes, I had fun writing that :heart: )

NKBJ
723
↪Frank Apisa
Using your exact logic you would be bound to:

"I do not know if the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect exists or not;
I see no reason to suspect the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect MUST EXIST...that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect 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."

So yeah, your logic leads to the conclusion that you can't know and can't meaningfully guess at whether I know that there is no God.

(Yes, I had fun writing that :heart: ) — NKBJ

I'm glad you had fun. Fun is a big part of these Internet fora...and I also am having fun. This seems to be a win/win situation.

My comments on whether gods exist or no gods exist...do not universalize the way you want them to seem.

I am NOT saying I do not know anything...I know quite a lot...using a reasonable definition of "know."

I know by birthday falls on August 9th; I know I am sitting at my desk typing on the keyboard of our computer; I know 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten; I know London is the capital of England; I know my wife is gonna give me a bit of kind grief when she gets home because I did not do nearly justice to the Honey-Do list today.

But I do not know if gods exist...or is there are no gods...or if the universe is infinite or discrete.

So...I see that you are being illogical on the issue which got us here.

That stuff you wrote just does not compute.

On what basis do you know that your birthday isn't a mistake? That you weren't switched at birth? We have evidence that people do get switched at birth (in which case your birthday may be August 8th or 7th or even 6th!), whereas we have no evidence that gods exist or even could exist. It's actually far more likely that you're wrong about your birthday than that gods exist.

By your logic, you cannot claim you know your birthday.

I'm glad you had fun. Fun is a big part of these Internet fora...and I also am having fun. This seems to be a win/win situation. — Frank Apisa

Good! I'm glad you're not as irritated as you seemed to be earlier in this thread :)

NKBJ
724
↪Frank Apisa


On what basis do you know that your birthday isn't a mistake? That you weren't switched at birth? We have evidence that people do get switched at birth (in which case your birthday may be August 8th or 7th or even 6th!), whereas we have no evidence that gods exist or even could exist. It's actually far more likely that you're wrong about your birthday than that gods exist.

By your logic, you cannot claim you know your birthday. — NKBJ

You are going ape.

Didn't mean to rattle you so. I thought you were more in control.

In any case, if you want to think that you KNOW that no gods exist, because I cannot "know" my birthday is August 9th...fine with me. Actually kind of amusing...and we both enjoy fun.

NKBJ
725

I'm glad you had fun. Fun is a big part of these Internet fora...and I also am having fun. This seems to be a win/win situation. — Frank Apisa


Good! I'm glad you're not as irritated as you seemed to be earlier in this thread :) — NKBJ

Thanks, N.

Sorry you are. :wink:

You are going ape.

Didn't mean to rattle you so. I thought you were more in control. — Frank Apisa

Oh boy... and we were just starting to get along. Too bad you can't stay nice consistently.

In any case, if you want to think that you KNOW that no gods exist, because I cannot "know" my birthday is August 9th...fine with me. — Frank Apisa

Oh boy again... I'm merely explaining why your logic isn't consistent.

Anyway, guess your odd and vague reply just means you can't explain how you can claim to know your birthday but not the non-existence of gods.

NKBJ
726

You are going ape.

Didn't mean to rattle you so. I thought you were more in control. — Frank Apisa


Oh boy... and we were just starting to get along. Too bad you can't stay nice consistently.

In any case, if you want to think that you KNOW that no gods exist, because I cannot "know" my birthday is August 9th...fine with me. — Frank Apisa


Oh boy again... I'm merely explaining why your logic isn't consistent.

Anyway, guess your odd and vague reply just means you can't explain how you can claim to know your birthday but not the non-existence of gods. — NKBJ

I do not know if any gods exist or not. I do not know if no gods exist.

I suspect you do not either...especially if it is the "there are no gods."

THAT is impossible to know.

So...where does that leave us?

So...where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa

That leaves us agreeing to disagree I suppose? At least, it seems to me the conversation is not moving forward much at this point.

Truce? Or do you have something heretofore unmentioned to add?

This is an anecdote******

I'll be among the first to say I don't know God. I've never met God nor have ever had the privilege to be in God's company. If I did, I never knew mentally that I was. In my personal experience when I found out I was allergic to a narcotic drug that could have killed me, God was there. When both my parents died and I lacked strength God was there. I believe God comes to us individually respective of our beliefs. Unlike a lot of religions I am not succumb to the concrete standards of dogma. God's existence is there its just an indescribable feeling. sometimes you have to stop and listen to hear God speak.

NKBJ
727

So...where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa


That leaves us agreeing to disagree I suppose? At least, it seems to me the conversation is not moving forward much at this point.

Truce? Or do you have something heretofore unmentioned to add? — NKBJ

Yeah, I've got "something heretofore unmentioned" to add.

I work as a starter at a golf course. Today was a banner day...warm, not a lot of wind...really pleasant. Instead of playing, I was sending other people out to play. And, being a good employee, I was smiling and being a good host while doing it.

I had a choice. Break something, kick the cat...or go into the Internet and "discuss" something.

Breaking things is childish...so I didn't choose that. I love our cats...so I didn't choose that.

Feel better now?

Oh God. But that just sounds very much like you're believing what you want to believe. The belief isn't reasonable, but it serves a purpose. It comforted you when you were vulnerable and experiencing trauma. It didn't need to be belief in God. In theory, it could have been belief in anything whatsoever, including things that believers themselves find ridiculous, preposterous, absurd, and unthinkable, but that is undoubtedly a double standard.

This sort of thinking is in sharp contrast to the critical thinking encouraged in philosophy. It is the sceptic who is more ethical in this regard, assuming we share the same values. The believer is not as principled. The believer caves in.

Oh God. But that just sounds very much like you're believing what you want to believe. — S

True. This is called belief...I believe the Lakers will one day win the NBA championship just as I believe the Cowboys will win the NFL.

he belief isn't reasonable, but it serves a purpose. — S

Of course, it gives my brain confidence, but it doesn't make me wrong for the belief.

In theory, it could have been belief in anything whatsoever, including things that believers themselves find ridiculous, preposterous, absurd, and unthinkable, but that is undoubtedly a double standard. — S

Well my ideas of a spaghetti god are different than my ideas of what and who God is.

True. This is called belief...I believe the Lakers will one day win the NBA championship just as I believe the Cowboys will win the NFL. — Anaxagoras

No, it is an example of belief, but not all belief is like that. That particular kind of belief is belief based on wishful thinking. It is unreasonable, and should therefore be rejected and avoided, if you share the same values as me in this regard.

Of course, it gives my brain confidence, but it doesn't make me wrong for the belief. — Anaxagoras

I judge it to be unethical.

Well my ideas of a spaghetti god are different than my ideas of what and who God is. — Anaxagoras

Well, yes. But so what? Believers often seem to have difficulty with this point. They point out differences, apparently forgetting that an analogy is not the same thing as an equivalence. It is about what the one and the other have in common in a specific respect, not in a different respect, and not in every respect. The analogy is about the epistemological basis, not about the fact that one is a spaghetti god and the other isn't. That much is obvious. It is actually quite silly to miss the point like that.

The actual content of the belief is irrelevant. Only the effectiveness of the purpose it serves is relevant. So, spaghetti god or just plain old god, it doesn't really matter in this sense.

No, it is an example of belief, but not all belief is like that. — S

Ok, fine your point?

That particular kind of belief is belief based on wishful thinking. — S

According to you. Religious belief or otherwise is personal and whether you perceive it as wishful is up to you, but nonetheless it is, my belief.

and should therefore be rejected and avoided, if you share the same values as me in this regard. — S

But you're nobody to me. You're an opinion on the internet and not an authority and even if you were an authority you're still a nobody online. Regardless how you formulate your arguments philosophically to where an atheist would jerk off to it and splooge all over the place, it would not change how I would believe spiritually.

I would stop if I were you because this road is actually closed. The "proving that God doesn't exist" stops here.

Ok, fine your point? — Anaxagoras

I went on to explain the point.

According to you. — Anaxagoras

Well yes, obviously according to me, but obviously not just according to me. That is a clear example of wishful thinking which anyone verify themselves, so long as they're capable.

Religious belief or otherwise is personal and whether you perceive it as wishful is up to you, but nonetheless it is, my belief. — Anaxagoras

No, it isn't up to me. That is a conclusion I have reached through reason. Abandoning reason is not a choice for me. I am convinced that it is wishful thinking, and would need to be convinced otherwise or deceived to believe otherwise.

Of course it's personal, but so what? It is not private, because you've made it public. We're discussing it. I am exercising my right to freedom of expression by telling you what I think about it.

But you're nobody to me. You're an opinion on the internet and not an authority and even if you were an authority you're still a nobody online. Regardless how you formulate your arguments philosophically to where an atheist would jerk off to it and splooge all over the place, it would not change how I would believe spiritually.

I would stop if I were you because this road is actually closed. The "proving that God doesn't exist" stops here. — Anaxagoras

That's all that ethics is. There is no authority. I can't force you to share my judgement or my values. I can only argue what I judge to be the merits of it, and the demerits of going against it.

It is also my judgement that it is a bad attitude to treat me as a nobody to you, instead of someone who might be worth listening to.

Well...obviously some people blindly guess there are no gods.

Some people blindly guess there is at a least one god.

Some people just don't bother to guess.

The people making the blind guesses call their blind guesses...beliefs.

Wonder why they do that?

Wouldn't it be more ethical to call them "guesses?"