You must have made that point about a hundred times now. Stop spamming.

S
9.1k
↪Frank Apisa
You must have made that point about a hundred times now. Stop spamming. — S

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you?

As for the "spamming" nonsense...shove it.

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you? — Frank Apisa

That's a different meaning to what I meant. Obviously.

S
9.1k

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you? — Frank Apisa


That's a different meaning to what I meant. Obviously. — S

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum.

There is no sense in "logic" that attempts to lead from nothing to something.

To say that I'm "blindly guessing" is to suggest that there's some visible evidence I'm not seeing, which is absurd. By your logic, if I'm driving a car and see no obstruction in front of me, I should assume I'm going to crash into whatever it is that I can't see.

It is both logical and reasonable to require evidence for something that has never been demonstrated. It is illogical to assert that a primitive fable is factual until conditions exist by which its allegations can be demonstrated as facts.

Your analogy about sentient life doesn't parallel religious claims and has no bearing on the conversation. Sentient life can be, and has been, demonstrated. Gods have not been demonstrated, neither have the tooth fairy or the boogey man.

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum. — Frank Apisa

Uh oh, flaming. I am not the owner or a moderator, although I have a pretty good understanding from a moderator's perspective, having been one myself here for a couple of years. It wasn't a threat, it was an advising of precaution. Although the second time around I simply told you to stop spamming, which is an imperative.

You're free to ignore it. I have no authority in that sense. But I don't like spam on this forum. Maybe they were more tolerant of it in your previous forum.

Sometimes the evidence is clear but we just don't want to see it. My pastor is Matt Brown, Sandals here in Riverside Ca. One of 8 churches he pastors, founded. His mantra is "Be real with God, be real with myself and be real with others."

"Gods have not been demonstrated." There's something of the mystical there.

All my best, sincerely

I am not talking about intuition or reasonable expectation though — Maureen

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly.

S
9.1k

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum. — Frank Apisa


Uh oh, flaming. I am not the owner or a moderator, although I have a pretty good understanding from a moderator's perspective, having been one myself here for a couple of years. It wasn't a threat, it was an advising of precaution. Although the second time around I simply told you to stop spamming, which is an imperative.

You're free to ignore it. I have no authority in that sense. But I don't like spam on this forum. Maybe they were more tolerant of it in your previous forum. — S

Fuck you!

Fuck you! — Frank Apisa

:grin:

:lol:

and I expected this forum to be absolutely toxic-free.

You're not talking about evidence, you're talking about personal experiences that haven't been demonstrated or replicated. This isn't about denying something even though you see evidence of it. This isn't about what someone wants or doesn't want.

Are you saying that your pastor and his "mantra" are proof of the existence of gods?

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly. — SethRy

Not just something, something in particular, namely God. But Maureen hasn't made clear the meaning she intended for this discussion, and until she does, we are at risk of talking past each other.

For some reason, she has decided to completely ignore this problem, instead of addressing it.

:up:

If there's nothing more to know about us than our bodies then how could we even be aware of that? How would my body know it's only a body? How would my body make the negative impact of the supernatural intelligible to itself?

I direct my awareness. On prima facie evidence that probably doesn't seem all that earth shattering to you, but it proves false psychoneural identity theory, the belief the brain produces the mind.

The phenomenology of psychic experience has been confirmed to several hundred sigma, several hundred standard deviations from a normal distribution. That's if you can't see yourself directing your awareness.

I grew up surrounded by doctors of jurisprudence. I know a lot about evidence, it's not a one word affair in law school.

peace.

That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life. — Frank Apisa

In fact, it exactly logically leads to that. When someone says "more likely" what are they comparing? If there is NO evidence it is CERTAINLY less likely than if there IS evidence....right? This makes no statement on how much more likely (could be 51% or 99%).

Notice that if we accept your logic here, then we must also accept that "finding evidence of god still says NOTHING about the likelihood of there actually being a god." And more problematic, "finding evidence of gravity, plate tectonics, evolution, etc says nothing about the likelihood of them being true".

We have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever that any sentient life exists on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. None whatsoever. — Frank Apisa

Agreed. And assuming that "sentience" will result in technological development, we can be VERY CERTAIN (not 100%) that there are no technologically advanced civilizations existing in the 25 closest stars. Now there could be some self aware dolphins floating around somewhere, but nothing advanced enough to use a radio...based on the evidence (it is not 100% because we can't know for sure there is NOT some super advanced civilization that has zero use for radio waves - or other signs of technology we would recognize - but this seems quite unlikely). The lack of evidence of advanced civilizations does exactly tell us it is less likely (says nothing of how much less likely, but unquestionably less), vs actually finding evidence.

Sorry Mr. Apisa. I am barely through page one of this thread. I will try to catch up and get back on track where we left off in the last thread...but I am worried I am just going to say the same things you already get from the other atheists. Do not feel the need to respond to me if I have just repeated another person's point...I will catch up.

There's no such thing as "making the impact of the supernatural intelligible". All impact is natural, and delusion is the only reason to assume otherwise. Everything that "detects the supernatural" is imaginary. The mind is how the brain is perceived by consciousness, it's not an entity external to the brain but an explanation for an imaginary manifestation of the brain, which happens in the brain.

There is no reliable evidence of any "psychic experience", and I'm not sure how that connects to the conversation, maybe you could elaborate.

There is evidence that each thought exists as a series of chemical and energetic processes before it becomes consciousness. Consciousness can't influence processes that are required in order for it to become consciousness. This leads me to believe, and this is an opinion, that all living and non-living things are interconnected in such ways as to "trick" our minds into perceiving experiences the way we perceive them, as organized in any way, as opposed to experiencing a mere energetic mess. It is an illusion, that anything we perceive is "organized" in any way.

It also leads me to believe that there is no free will and that anything perceived as supernatural is merely a misunderstood natural phenomenon. There is reliable, replicable evidence for this and no reliable, replicable evidence against it.

You are confusing being agnostic with being an agnostic atheist or an agnostic theist. — Maureen

@Frank Apisa I will include you too, as I was going to say this to you at some point.

Actually it seems (to me) that those who want to be just "agnostic" are confused. They are dealing with a different question than the rest of us. "Atheist" and "Theist" address the question "do you believe (think) there is a god?" The agnostics change the question to "is there a god?" Which is clearly a VERY different question. One is a question of knowledge, one of belief. "I don't know" is an answer to a knowledge question. The appropriate answer to "do you believe?" would be "I don't believe so" or "I don't think so", notice that makes you an atheist by definition.

Why are "agnostics" so opposed to being called "agnostic atheists"? Would "agnostic" or "atheist" even be used if religion wasn't such a dominant force in society?

As an "agnostic" do you really view your position as being right in the middle of Christian & Atheist? Because from my perspective, agnostic seems WAY closer to atheist than to Christianity.

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly.
— SethRy

Not just something, something in particular, namely God. But Maureen hasn't made clear the meaning she intended for this discussion, and until she does, we are at risk of talking past each other.

For some reason, she has decided to completely ignore this problem, instead of addressing it.

^I have said this numerous times, but it seems that people like you and Frank like to ignore things that are posted here for which you have no argument or either pretend that you don't know or understand what is being said. So I will say it again, in plain English. If there is a 0.01 percent that God does exist and a 99.9 percent chance that God does not exist, then you DO NOT KNOW if God does or does not exist. Period. I don't know, you don't know, and in fact NO ONE knows. In the scenario that I have presented, I will agree that God probably would not exist, but you still do not know either way, especially since nothing is known with 100 percent certainty in spite of the likelihood or percentage to which it is known. I'm not sure exactly what is so hard to understand about any of this, but the ONLY point that I am trying to make is that no one knows if God does or does not exist. If you can agree that no one knows if God does or does not exist, then there should be no need for further discussion or argument on this post, and frankly I'm not even sure I have any idea why anyone here continues to argue or what point they are trying to make with regards to something so simple.

Someone else even asked me if I would agree that I don't know if I have a third hand, and I would in fact agree with this since I don't see 3 hands on my body and therefore I don't know if I have 3 hands since nothing is known with 100 percent certainty.

Yes you're not; but you are saying that you can't prove the non-existence or existence of something. Of course you can that's silly.

^That also depends on exactly what it is that you are trying to prove exists, as well as what means you are using to determine if it exists. Example: If someone says that there is a colony of little people on the island of Galapagos, and you go to that island and do a thorough search but do not see a colony of little people, do you determine that the colony simply does not exist, or that it does exist but you just didn't see it, or that it may or may not exist, but you don't know if it exists? You could conclude any one of these things, but nothing that you conclude will change anything about if the colony does exist or does not exist, or the probability that it does exist.

You don't have to wonder weather a mistake of grammar actually exists or not. — StreetlightX

Whether or not you did this on purpose (I am assuming you did), I enjoyed it :grin:

Sweet Jesus, not more spam. Nothing in that copy-paste of your comment clarifies your meaning of "God". That is not helpful at all. How hard is it to understand the problem I've raised and respond accordingly? Your response should begin, "By 'God', I mean...".

This isn't like talking about a cat. We all know what a cat is. It would be safe to assume that we're all talking about the same thing in that case.

Do we know that God doesn't exist? Yes and no. It depends.

Is that a satisfactory answer? If not, then pull your bloody socks up and clarify!.

It is your responsibility, as the creator of this discussion, to act as chair, and to ensure that we're all talking about what we're supposed to be talking about, and not confused or unclear, and not talking past each other. Take responsibility and act to redress the problem!

I'm not sure exactly what is so hard to understand about any of this, but the ONLY point that I am trying to make is that no one knows if God does or does not exist. If you can agree that no one knows if God does or does not exist, then there should be no need for further discussion or argument on this post, and frankly I'm not even sure I have any idea why anyone here continues to argue or what point they are trying to make with regards to something so simple. — Maureen

Well...

Firstly, nobody ever disagreed, from I know, regarding your conclusion in the OP. However, the analogies and subsequent premises you proposed are erroneous — regarding the principles of epistemology: absolute truth, beliefs, and knowledge.

Secondly, it should be intrinsically accepted in forums like this that you must have a main proposition, people can agree with your conclusion, but not necessarily your process. Nobody ever disagreed with you that no rational person can assert absolute truth regarding the existence of a god, people only disagreed with your proposed analogies to reinforce that.

Like proving the non-existence of something, external discussions shadowed the idea you're trying to convey. thus;

But Maureen hasn't made clear the meaning she intended for this discussion, and until she does, we are at risk of talking past each other.

For some reason, she has decided to completely ignore this problem, instead of addressing it — S

You must outline your proposition first, because if people are not satisfied with the clarity of your proposition, things like this can happen. So, commit to a conclusion based on your premises, whether or not they are: deductive, inductive, or abductive arguments.

No need to discordantly address @Frank Apisa's and my, as you believe, inability to see the main idea. Because clearly, it's you who are missing the point. Anyway, I hope that's all good and behind us, have a great week :D

Just to help, if you want to quote someone, just highlight their text from their original comment and it should provide you an option to 'quote'. Hope that helped, @Maureen.

That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life. — Frank Apisa


In fact, it exactly logically leads to that. When someone says "more likely" what are they comparing? If there is NO evidence it is CERTAINLY less likely than if there IS evidence....right? This makes no statement on how much more likely (could be 51% or 99%). — ZhouBoTong

I could not disagree more, Zhou.

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets.

Go at this particular again. Put out your best argument.

Let's deal with it for a bit...because there is something of consequence in this part of the issue.

We can go to the rest of your post after resolving this...if it can be resolved.

That's fair enough to post such a question.
Above all the research, God is a belief. Nothing could do much about it's existence. And in nothing is everything.
I can remember you of the existence of law of attraction. According to the law, if one believes in something or if one thinks about a certain thing again and again and again , then there is a strong possibility of such thought coming into existence. So, what if I say God does exist as billions of people thought about God for all these centuries?
And to my belief, I can say God is just man -sculptured form of nature.

there is a 0.01 percent that God does exist and a 99.9 percent chance that God does not exist, then you DO NOT KNOW if God does or does not exist. Period. — Maureen

"Knowledge" as you are using the word, requires complete certainty. Nothing wrong with that, but your claim that noone knows whether God exists is not very interesting given that definition. Most philosophers - atheist and theist - would agree that noone knows with certainty that God exists. They would say, rather that there are good reasons to favour one side rather than another. Moreover, so what if we can't know whether God exists with certainty? I can't even know with certainty some trivial matter like what I had for breakfast half an hour ago.

I agree with your claim, but then I don't think there are many philosophically educated folk who would disagree. Although, you can never be too sure what the consensus is on a topic..

PA

Nothing wrong with that, but your claim that noone knows whether God exists is not very interesting given that definition. — PossibleAaran

Yes! This one gets it :grin:

Hi, hope today finds you well, & happy. Your position is referred to as psychoneural identity theory, the belief the brain produces the mind, the theory that brain states are identically mental states.

I'm not an adherent for the reasons I gave you above. 1. I direct my awareness. 2. Mental facts are not a consequence of physical facts. 3. A mental state can be dispositional with no accompanying physicality, & 4. In sum, the function of the noetic subsystem of mind is evaluative & supervisory.

All 4 of these things are my experiential reality every waking moment of my life and some of the time when I'm sleeping too.

83 (footnote) While Dennett makes complex neurophysiological arguments, the issue can be resolved by simple reflection. For information to unite at a single locus, it must unite at a point, because uniting in a finite region, however small, is no different in principle than being spread over the whole brain. No single point can have the differentiation to represent complex data physically. The idea that physically encoded information must unite at a single locus is untenable, regardless of details. - God, Science & Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis, Ph.D. Dr. Polis is a physicist and has studied the Hard Problem of Consciousness extensively throughout his life. He's also a contributor here, dfpolis.

While we disagree about God, science & naturalism, I'd like to thank you for the polite conversations. I appreciate you articulating your position and how you frame it in the context of it being your position and not something you claim to be experiencing. I really do appreciate that, you very well have the courage of your convictions and aren't stating those as facts for me. Thank you!

For a glimpse into the phenomenology of psychic experience I suggest Dfpolis #22 The Mind Body Problem & Dfpolis #45 Knowledge and Mysticism, both on YouTube.

"Knowledge" as you are using the word, requires complete certainty. Nothing wrong with that, but your claim that noone knows whether God exists is not very interesting given that definition. Most philosophers - atheist and theist - would agree that noone knows with certainty that God exists. They would say, rather that there are good reasons to favour one side rather than another. Moreover, so what if we can't know whether God exists with certainty? I can't even know with certainty some trivial matter like what I had for breakfast half an hour ago. — PossibleAaran

I get what you are saying...but the fact remains that "knowing" used in certain contexts is quite different from "knowing" used in a philosophical context.

In casual conversation one can easily and reasonably say, "I know where I parked my car"; "I know the name on my birth certificate is..."; "I know that London is the capital of England"...and the like.

But saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation.

There is certainly nothing wrong with guessing that a GOD exists. (I did during an earlier part of my life)...nor with guessing that no gods exist. But they are just guesses...no matter what the guesses are labelled.

One is also free not to make any guesses on the issue...which I consider to be the more ethical way to handle things.