Are you saying that it's not logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist?

Are you saying that it's not logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station

No, I'm not saying that. It is logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist. But that doesn't refute my argument, so why are you focusing on that?

So if it's logically possible, and logical possibility is sufficient to justify a stance, then logical possibility is sufficient to justify both P and not-P, right? If not, why not?

(P and not-P in this case being "We do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist," and "We don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist." )

So if it's logically possible, and logical possibility is sufficient to justify a stance, then logical possibility is sufficient to justify both P and not-P, right? If not, why not?

(P and not-P in this case being "We do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist," and "We don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist." ) — Terrapin Station

You're twisting my words. I wasn't generalising about logical possibility. I made a specific point. You haven't said anything to refute my specific point.

If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

Do understand why that is?

My point was that logical possibility isn't sufficient to claim something. Why not? Because for the vast majority of things, if it's logically possible that P, then it's also logically possible that not-P. So if logical possibility is sufficient to claim something, then we regularly have to claim contradictions.

You disagreed and said that logical possibility is sufficient.

It is sufficient in this case to justify the specific claim that I referenced, and to claim that therefore the contrary must also be justified is illogical and makes no sense whatsoever.

Again, logical possibility is sufficient to justify the stance that we don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

If you cannot logically rule out the possibility of the actual existence of god, unspecified, then you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

Do understand why that is?

Either logical possibility is sufficient to justify a claim or it isn't. If something else is required--so that there are some cases where it's justified and other cases where it's not, then logical possibility isn't actually sufficient. Something else is required. "Sufficient" means that nothing else is required.

Either logical possibility is sufficient to justify a claim or it isn't. If something else is required--so that there are some cases where it's justified and other cases where it's not, then logical possibility isn't actually sufficient. Something else is required. "Sufficient" means that nothing else is required. — Terrapin Station

You don't need to explain to me what "sufficient" means, you need to understand my point and respond appropriately.

Nothing other than the logical possibility of an undetectable god is required to justify the claim that you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist.

Do you understand that or not? Because you keep missing the point.

Nothing other than the logical possibility of an undetectable god is required to justify the claim that you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, exists. — S

Okay. Is something other than the logical possibility of a necessarily detectable god required to justify the claim that you are justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist?

Okay. Is something other than the logical possibility of a necessarily detectable god required to justify the claim that you are justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station

Yes, because the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god. The actual existence of a god as per that particular conception is what you'd have to rule out as impossible.

This still doesn't change anything. You still haven't refuted my argument. You are taking us on a futile diversion.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

I didn't. — Frank Apisa


Then why did you bring it up when I was talking about evidence? — Terrapin Station

I didn't.

Go back...quote what I said to which you are taking exception...and let's discuss that rather than what you are saying I said.

Yes, because the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god. The actual existence of a god as per that particular conception is what you'd have to rule out as impossible. — S

Wouldn't these be factors in addition to logical possibility?

Wouldn't these be factors in addition to logical possibility? — Terrapin Station

Given that what you're referring to is a logical possibility, that would make no sense. Unless you can demonstrate that it is logically impossible through contradiction, it is a logical possibility. And that logical possibility is sufficient for my argument to succeed.

Are you just twisting my words with the aim of scoring a point, or what? What is your intent?

You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa

I do not have to concede that possibility since I have acknowledged it all along. See the distinction I made between epistemic agnosticism and pistemic atheism. Allow me to help you with that. I make no knowledge claims about the existence of gods, they may or may not exist, I do not know. But I do not believe they do exist.

If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa

I am not telling you anything about the gods. I know nothing of gods. I am telling you what I believe. It is not a guess and it is not blind. It is a matter of not finding anything that leads me to think there are gods, but that is not a guess about whether there are or not. If I were asked to guess I say that barring some further development it seems me that there are not. It would be blind from an epistemological standpoint, but beliefs involve more than what we think we know.

Fooloso4
349

You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa


I do not have to concede that possibility since I have acknowledged it all along. See the distinction I made between epistemic agnosticism and pistemic atheism. Allow me to help you with that. I make no knowledge claims about the existence of gods, they may or may not exist, I do not know. But I do not believe they do exist.

If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa


I am not telling you anything about the gods. I know nothing of gods. I am telling you what I believe. It is not a guess and it is not blind. It is a matter of not finding anything that leads me to think there are gods, but that is not a guess about whether there are or not. If I were asked to guess I say that barring some further development it seems me that there are not. It woul — Fooloso4

I disagree with lots of what you said here, but I am going to attack our disagreement in a different way.

I am going to agree with something you said; add something to it; and then ask if you are of the same mind on what I added.

Regarding gods, you wrote: "But I do not believe they do exist."

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind?

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to.

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic.

Fooloso4
352

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa


We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

There were NO "beliefs" held there, Foolso.

I spoke of what I held no beliefs about.

There are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them. Therefore, I do not "believe" any gods exist...which is what I said.

There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

There was nothing contradictory expressed.

This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must.

S
9.3k

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4


There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic. — S

Thank you, S.

That is something that escapes most people. Nice to see that you got it.

Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic.

Both Theist and Atheist standpoints challenge logic.

Devans99
1.2k
Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic.

Both Theist and Atheist standpoints challenge logic. — Devans99

I am not sure that is "returning" to the OP...but...

...IF we define agnostic as "not knowing if at least one god exists or not"...then everyone is an agnostic.

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so?

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way?

There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

There was nothing contradictory expressed.

This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must. — Frank Apisa

If your point was to say that you hold no beliefs about gods then why not say that? Instead you expressed a belief - using a double negative. It is not a question of logic but of determining what you are trying to say.

If I say that I do not believe that it is not going to rain, that may mean I believe it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether it will rain or not.

You play on the ambiguity but why? To what end? If you hold to the idea that precise language is a must then why use ambiguous language?

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa

I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' others to their side.

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa

There are logical arguments for God. There are no logical arguments against God. There is empirical evidence for God. There is no empirical evidence against God. Hence the die is weighted.

Fooloso4
353

There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

There was nothing contradictory expressed.

This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must. — Frank Apisa


If your point was to say that you hold no beliefs about gods then why not say that? Instead you expressed a belief - using a double negative. It is not a question of logic but of determining what you are trying to say. — Fooloso4

I did NOT express a "belief." I mentioned that I do not hold certain "beliefs." I was not TRYING to say something...I WAS saying something.

You, erroneously claimed I was holding two contradictory thoughts.

You were wrong.

If I say that I do not believe that it is not going to rain, that may mean I believe it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether it will rain or not. — Fool

Okay.

You play on the ambiguity but why? To what end? If you hold to the idea that precise language is a must then why use ambiguous language?

I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way.

I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa

If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game.

Devans99
1.2k

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa


I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' other to their side. — Devans99

Okay. And there are some people who just never want to acknowledge not knowing something...especially in the "god" continuum.

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa

There are logical arguments for God. There are no logical arguments against God. — Devans

From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament.

You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God...although there are logical arguments for gods. AND there are logical arguments against that God...very logical...plus there are logical arguments against the idea of gods entirely.

There is empirical empirical for God. — Devans

I do not know what that means.

There is no empirical evidence against God. Hence the die is weighted.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.

You are wrong.

Fooloso4
354

I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa


If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game. — Fooloso4

If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.

If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.

You are/were dead wrong. Just man up and acknowledge it. You'll feel better about yourself.

From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament. — Frank Apisa

I do not know which God it is. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I know. There is an almost zero chance that any of the worlds religions are correct so it is hard to identify God with a particular Religion. Some religions have some things partially correct. For example, I believe catholics believe that God is timeless which is correct.

You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God — Frank Apisa

If you want to debate the existence of a first cause, best to do it here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p2

I have laid out all the arguments in the OP.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.

You are wrong. — Frank Apisa

What empirical evidence can you give against God? My God is not omni-present BTW.

You're not following what I'm saying.

You brought up the following above: "the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god."

Is that identical to simply saying "It's logically possible," or is that something different than simply saying "it's logically possible"?

Duplicate