:lol:

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but there are gnostic and agnostic iterations of both theism and atheism. Gnostic means that they profess certainty, which I agree is strange and rather dishonest, while agnostic means that they admit uncertainty but lean one way or another for whatever reason. Personally, I'm an agnostic theist.

Thank yoo...Will miss you too....lots of love to you...

RBS
32
↪Frank Apisa
Dude,,,,,,there is nothing in your writings or ideas that makes sense, you are not standing on your own theories, do you think with your broken and unfinished theories you can think of what is philosophy or do you think you are actually doing philosophy.....

You are just rephrasing your one word over and over and that's what is happening with most of the "..k" comments people. I thought you guys will be smart but in reality you guys are just a memory drive of unmeaning-full sentences....

I was thinking and hoping that this forum will be somewhat useful, but now am seeing that most of us here are just doing gibberish and doesn't make any sense.

Good luck with what you are after and what you will learn, for me its enough.... — RBS

Okay.

Careful of the door.

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

Those are the first words of my position on the issue. I have no idea of what you are talking about, Maureen.

HERE IS MY POSITION:

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

Exactly, which is why my point is and has always been to just say that you don't know if God(s) exist or not and leave it at that. Giving any reasons why this is the case is to suggest that those reason(s) is the basis for why you don't know if God(s) exist, which is entirely unnecessary since no one knows if God(s) exists or not. You or anyone else could simply say: "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and it would be exactly the same as saying "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and then giving reason(s) for this. Whether you do or do not give reasons for it, the fact will still always be that you, nor anyone else knows if God(s) exist. I won't even bother to explain again why it is that no one knows if God(s) exist, because I feel like it would be hypocritical of what I just said, not to mention monotonous and repetitious.

Maureen
23

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

Those are the first words of my position on the issue. I have no idea of what you are talking about, Maureen.

HERE IS MY POSITION:

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


Exactly, which is why my point is and has always been to just say that you don't know if God(s) exist or not and leave it at that. Giving any reasons why this is the case is to suggest that those reason(s) is the basis for why you don't know if God(s) exist, which is entirely unnecessary since no one knows if God(s) exists or not. You or anyone else could simply say: "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and it would be exactly the same as saying "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and then giving reason(s) for this. Whether you do or do not give reasons for it, the fact will still always be that you, nor anyone else knows if God(s) exist. I won't even bother to explain again why it is that no one knows if God(s) exist, because I feel like it would be hypocritical of what I just said, not to mention monotonous and repetitious. — Maureen

I responded to your question. I did it as courteously as possible. And in return, I get a lot of shit in return.

I am not here for any grief from you.

If you do not like what I say...or the way I say it...don't read my comments.

Either that...or go fuck yourself.

The choice is yours. No need to tell me why you chose whatever you choose.

Hi, you asked me for the science, and I didn't provide any. There is actually 150 years of psychic testing and significant statistical results.

The Ganzfeld boasts a 7% difference between random and psychically driven power; a 32% hit rate over an average (random average) of 25%. When people with previous experience, people open to the experience, and siblings are tested it moves from 32% to 60% or about a 35% success rate over the mean.

In one meta-analysis the z score (sigma) is 16.1 with 1.4 billion random number generations studied (the tests/trials). There are three types of random number generators: radioactive decay; electronic tunneling; & light beam splitter. http://boundarylab.org/bi/articles/rngma.pdf

That article is about the RNG's but mentions this on page 2 on dice throws: "This set of dice experiments produced a small overall effect (an average of 1.2% over chance expectation), but statistically this was more than 18 standard errors from chance." 34.1 standard deviations from a normal distribution. 34.1 sigma. The Higgs Boson won with 6 sigma.

Hiya!

People who claim "atheism" are claiming it emphatically. Claim it do, claim it don't, but there can be no uncertainty about whether it is being claimed or not.

One of my favorite "atheological" posers is Jacklyn Glenn. I vividly remember a video she made on YouTube where she discusses, "Coming out as an atheist." If one claims "atheism" and you aren't experiencing them denying the deity claim then the closet for them to come out of can't exist.

"Dear mom & dad, little Timmy, I haven't ever denied the deity claim before, but now I'm going out as an atheist." ???

Hello Friend,

It is not as much an ontological mystery as you might think.

Definition of God/god/gods Merriam Webster

1 capitalized : the supreme or ultimate reality: such as a: the Being perfect in power, wisdom, and goodness who is worshipped as creator and ruler of the universe. b Christian Science : the incorporeal divine Principle ruling over all as eternal Spirit : infinite Min

2 : a being or object believed to have more than natural attributes and powers and to require human worship; specifically : one controlling a particular aspect or part of reality Greek gods of love and war

3 : a person or thing of supreme value. "had photos of baseball's gods pinned to his bedroom wall."

4 : a powerful ruler. "Hollywood gods that control our movies' fates."

God Dictionary com

noun
1.
the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2.
the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute:
the God of Islam.
3.
(lowercase) one of several deities, especially a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4.
(often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception:
the god of mercy.
5.
Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6.
(lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7.
(lowercase) any deified person or object.
verb (used with object), godded, godding. (lowercase)
8.
(often lowercase) Gods, Theater.
the upper balcony in a theater.
the spectators in this part of the balcony.
9.
to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
interjection
10.
(used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like):
God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?

God is not a god or any god. These are different and incompatible terms.

Thank you for your welcoming me here. I really do/did appreciate that, and I'm sorry, I believe in one comment I misstated your philosophical stance. It is not my intention to alienate anyone, certainly not on Good Friday.

Until the internet (my getting on it), I never knew it was an option to believe mythology is real.

Not sure what that test is or how it relates, it's chance and not evidence of anything "supernatural". I've had "precognitive" dreams, I've been exposed to "psychic phenomena", I've lived in "haunted" houses, I've witnessed "alternate realities"--I've personally experienced what some people would call "supernatural" or "psychic". I have no reason to deny that inexplicable things happen. That something is inexplicable doesn't mean that it's "supernatural", and correlation isn't reliable "proof".

If I was inclined to believe that rolling dice were scientific evidence of "supernatural", after seeing things that don't exist or dreaming details of future events, then we would be having a very different conversation.

Hi, all of this data comes to me by way of a world class physicist who has taken back several Nobel prizes. He's proven that there is no such thing as particles. So, there can be no question of the scientific validity of each of his statements.

The supernatural has been tested for 150 years. It's tested in a myriad of ways notwithstanding each of us directs our awareness, discussing consciousness is behavior it causes, and so naturalism has been proven false.

It's Good News, the best. It may not comport with your take on things, but it's Good News nonetheless. We don't merely consist of our bodies. When our bodies give out, that's not the end of us.

It's a small but consistently significant effect. I gave you 34.1 sigma (z - score) but it's actually a lot more when you look at an aggregate of all the meta-analyses. A baseline is established, there are billions of tests/trials, there are meta-analyses, skeptical replications, peer review, and the statistically significant results are present with the file drawer effect taken into account.

Dfpolis #22 The Mind Body Problem

Hello, this is Dr. Dennis Polis, welcome to another in the series of Open Philosophy videos. In this video we will be considering the mind body problem which is, how can an immaterial mind control physical movement? (Skipping ahead).

All of these results are much higher than the standard set by Victor Stenger in his book, God: The Failed Hypothesis, there he arbitrarily sets odds of 10,000 to 1 for a result to qualify as scientific. One criticism of meta-analysis is that studies with no significant effect are more likely to be filed away than published. This is called the file drawer effect. We can estimate how likely this is to reduce a significant effect to insignificance by calculating how many additional unpublished studies showing no effect would be required to reduce the results to insignificance.

For dice throws almost 18,000 (17,974) unpublished studies with no results would be required. For Radin & Nelson's (2003) meta-analysis almost 11 million file drawer studies would be required. Thus, we can be confident that the mind can exert intentional control over the laws of nature with the effect being about 1 part in 10,000.

One part in 10,000 doesn't seem like a very large effect, however, the brain contains 10 to the 11th neurons. Thus, an effect of one part in 10,000 corresponds to controlling 10 million neurons. Given that the brain has evolved as a control system and that the nature of control systems is to use small inputs to control large outputs, this is more than adequate to control our body and behavior.

all of this data comes to me by way of a world class physicist who has taken back several Nobel prizes. He's proven that there is no such thing as particles. So, there can be no question of the scientific validity of each of his statements. — Daniel Cox

At a moment when I felt I was due for some hysterical laughter, I appreciate this, sincerely. Please feel free to share this super-genius Nobel physicist's name so I can look him up in relation to psychic experimentation over the last 150 years.

Never mind, I found him.

Yeah, he's here, @Dfpolis

The Failure of Causal Closure

Since the vertical line of causation is atemporal, it is missed by a mechanical projection looking solely at time-ordered events for explanations. No prior event can explain a later, disjoint, event. It is simply _not there_ when the later event occurs. Physics reflects this insight in relativistic quantum field theory's _locality postulate,_ which rejects action at a distance (In modern physics "distance" combines space and time. The non-locality in the Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox does not contradict the locality postulate because it follows from quantum field theory, which is based on the locality postulate). Information from an earlier event is only present later because a logical propagator has brought it forward in time. Logical propagators operate on information, acting in the physical theater of operation via _intentionality._ Immaterial entities are not only causally effective, but are causes _par excellence._ Without them, events would be disjoint monads.

While essential and accidental causality are distinct, they are directly related. The regular sequence in Humean-Kantian causality is the integral effect of natural laws' essential causality. Thus, Humean-Kantian causality is dependent upon the intentional laws of nature. This is seen in the basic equation of quantum field theory, a paradigm of fundamental physics. - God, Science and Mind: The Irrationality of Naturalism by Dennis F. Polis available from Lulu and Amazon, pp. 56-7.

This was an earlier attempt to copy out his book by hand. Added the authoritative case references into the body of the text. Pobody's Nerfect.

Your comment about this physicist is based on either insufficient knowledge or intentional deception. He won a singular Nobel Prize prior to becoming involved in parapsychology--a study on behalf of which he's lost credibility.

Transcendental meditation is not physics, and the man hasn't proven anything except maybe that he's mellow. I don't know, I'd have to meet him to know that. Either way, I believe particles can be further broken down into energy and empty space and that all things are made of variations of these, but that's only what has been observed by someone who isn't me, calculated or speculated from behind a veil of senses--none of it is "real". "Particle" is just a name given to an object that appears a certain way. "Particle" is just a word made from symbols. It's all semantics.

Honestly, I take all invisible things with a pinch of salt until they demonstrate potential to cause massive loss of life. Calling things "particles" has also led to saving lives. Maybe they'll be called something else some day.

If there's ever a scientific explanation for "psychic phenomena", then its "natural", not "supernatural".

You're copy-pasting things you don't even understand.

Have you ever for one second considered it's a logical possibility you're mistaken across the board? One of us is.

When an author copies and pastes his work is that copying and pasting? While I was not the original author I am the scribe who copied it all out by hand and those were given the same authority as God, the ones who copied out the Bible.

If you ever took a couple of days and read the Bible you'd know the Scribes (in the New Testament) were the ones officially challenging Christ. No one had a greater knowledge.

You don't copy anything out by hand, do you? It's my preferred method for learning because simply reading stuff doesn't put you in the mind of the person who wrote it. I had to fact check every single detail based on the spelling alone, that was for the 63 of 67 of his videos I transcribed. Copying out the books was no cakewalk either.

Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging (fMRI) observes brain activity, but via blood flow, not neural activity. One might imagine a technology similar to FMRI to observe synaptic firing. What would be required for an MRI of complete brain state? Since synaptic gaps are about 0.25µm thick and current MRI scans have millimeter resolution, we must do 10,000 times better.

See that, 0.25µm ? That took a bit of research, to get that character the same as in the book, I had to research it online. In order to get the correct character I had to learn everything there is to know about it. I had to understand it, or one might say it got beat into me for the bargain. I don't know everything Dr. Polis knows, but I've got a lot of it underhand. I've purchased and given away 12 or 13 of his books.

One micron, .001 millimeter. .007, James, James Bond. You got a degree in physics, philosophy or some natural science? Universities issue degrees in parapsychology. Maybe you're just a bit behind the times?

He hasn't won a Nobel prize. I haven't either, but I do have the most famous trophy in the history of the world.

Okay, we're done here.

Guys, after reading almost all the notes, here is what i would suggest, start with simply putting one sentence or idea forward at a time, there is too much confusion in all your thoughts, — RBS

That's a persistent problem with the board in general.

Atheism is neither agnostic or certain of the non-existence of God. That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief. So the notion that God "could exist" becomes irrelevant since it's not even a concept worth entertaining as there is nothing pointing to such an explanation for anything.

If raising the question, the answer is agnostic, but the question is flawed in the first place through an atheistic perspective. Just like Russell's teapot analogy, the question itself becomes absurd: "We can never be sure there is or isn't a teapot in orbit around the sun". That is an agnostic claim and an absolutely absurd one. The theistic perspective would be that they are certain that the teapot is there, without any data or rational deduction of how or why. The atheistic perspective is that the question itself is absurd, so the answer whether there is or isn't a teapot becomes just as absurd. As long as there isn't anything pointing towards the existence or non-existence of a teapot in space, the question itself is just abstract, absurd fantasies not worth entertaining in search of knowledge. It may even be that the search for proving or disproving such a thing is fundamentally a waste of time when there are things in our universe that we can measure and is much more worth examining in order to understand existence.

The atheistic question then becomes, why should we waste time asking absurd questions, debating absurd non-sensical hypothetical answers to these absurd questions, instead of putting time and energy into the things we can actually measure and get knowledge about? We should build from what we know, grow knowledge of what we can actually grow knowledge from and build our understanding of the universe and our existence from that evolving knowledge. Anything else is a distraction and a waste of time if knowledge and understanding is our goal.

Yeah, the default on completely ridiculous ideas shouldn't be that they're plausible, so we'll refrain from saying one way or the other.

Christoffer
413
↪Maureen


Atheism is neither agnostic or certain of the non-existence of God. That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief. So the notion that God "could exist" becomes irrelevant since it's not even a concept worth entertaining as there is nothing pointing to such an explanation for anything. — Christoffer

Do you realize that is all bullshit?

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" of atheism...because there is no actual understanding of atheism. It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it.

Some atheists mean it to denote "an assertion that no gods exist."

Some atheist mean it to denote "a belief that no gods exist."

Some atheists mean it to denote "a belief or assertion that it is more LIKELY that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Some atheists mean it to denote "simply a lack of belief that gods exist."

Some atheists mean it to denote the bullshit you just posted.

It is a worthless word...as a descriptor. That is why I often ask people claiming atheism...what they mean.

There are people who have "beliefs" (and who discuss at length) whether or not a particular team will win the next SuperBowl...or the next World's Cup.

If that is a reasonable topic for discussion...certainly the topic of whether or not gods exist is a reasonable topic for discussion. For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit.

Just sayin'!

Do you realize that is all bullshit? — Frank Apisa

To you perhaps

It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it. — Frank Apisa

How do you conclude that to be the true concept of atheism?

For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit. — Frank Apisa

You have a fundamentally limited understanding of what I actually wrote, so that's probably the reason your intellectual level is to just spam "bullshit". If that's the level of intellectual rhetoric and discussion you want to exist on, I think it's easy to deduce which is intellectually superior.

Just sayin

I would welcome a more philosophical response than "bullshit", if you demand not to be intellectually inferior, as per your own way of defining things.

Christoffer
417

Do you realize that is all bullshit? — Frank Apisa


To you perhaps — Christoffer

To anyone thinking!

It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it. — Frank Apisa


How do you conclude that to be the true concept of atheism? — Christopher

I told you.

Because I ask people who use the word as a descriptor...and those are some of the answers I've gotten.

For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit. — Frank Apisa


You have a fundamentally limited understanding of what I actually wrote, so that's probably the reason your intellectual level is to just spam "bullshit". If that's the level of intellectual rhetoric and discussion you want to exist on, I think it's easy to deduce which is intellectually superior.

More bullshit.

Just sayin

I would welcome a more philosophical response than "bullshit", if you demand not to be intellectually inferior, as per your own way of defining things.

I couldn't care less what you'd "welcome."

I am saying that YOUR assertion that...

...That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief...

...is not worth more respect than to be called "bullshit."

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level.

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level. — Frank Apisa

Or you could have better manners and phrase your arguments better so that I could care to value your opinion. Right now, valuing your argument relevant gets lost whenever I see "bullshit" as an answer. So I'll rather wait for other better-mannered people to discuss with and not waste my time on someone who's level of engagement starts with "bullshit".

Christoffer
421

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level. — Frank Apisa


Or you could have better manners and phrase your arguments better so that I could care to value your opinion. Right now, valuing your argument relevant gets lost whenever I see "bullshit" as an answer. So I'll rather wait for other better-mannered people to discuss with and not waste my time on someone who's level of engagement starts with "bullshit". — Christoffer

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful.

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful. — Frank Apisa

Nope, you just don't understand my argument and replies with it being bullshit instead of nuanced argumentation. Your post is not worthy of being a philosophical part of a discussion since you are not even trying to be involved in a back and forth discussion. Now you want me to say my argument doesn't hold up, as agreeing that you know better. Your arrogance and attitude have been seen across this forum and I don't feel there's any reason to involve myself in a discussion with someone at your level. Return with better manners and better philosophical respect and I may entertain having a discussion, until then, I cannot value your post as a relevant counter-point to what I wrote.

Christoffer
422

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful. — Frank Apisa


Nope, you just don't understand my argument and replies with it being bullshit instead of nuanced argumentation. Your post is not worthy of being a philosophical part of a discussion since you are not even trying to be involved in a back and forth discussion. Now you want me to say my argument doesn't hold up, as agreeing that you know better. Your arrogance and attitude have been seen across this forum and I don't feel there's any reason to involve myself in a discussion with someone at your level. Return with better manners and better philosophical respect and I may entertain having a discussion, until then, I cannot value your post as a relevant counter-point to what I wrote. — Christoffer

Chris...get under control. Don't let comments like this trigger you so.

If you want to discuss some of these issues with me...discuss. If you want to suppose you are above discussing matters of this sort with me because I am beneath you in some way...

...fine with me. I accept that is the way you feel.

Just stop discussing.

Don't keep posting comments about stopping!

Write a post with a better philosophical substance so I have something to work from. I can't work from answers like "bullshit". It's not that it's triggering, it's that it's fundamentally lacking relevant substance and I don't think the quality of your post is enough. You write like you were writing Facebook comments or twitter rants, not having a philosophical discussion.

If you can't raise the quality of your writing to a point where the discussion is a progression of ideas, you are merely ranting your emotional opinions. If you can't see that it's the way you write and your attitude that's the problem here, you might not have the ability for self-reflection.

I can't work out well-composed arguments from bullish attitudes and rant-like rhetoric. It's pretty much beneath me and is beneath anyone interested in proper philosophical debate manners.

Christoffer
423
↪Frank Apisa


Write a post with a better philosophical substance so I have something to work from. I can't work from answers like "bullshit". It's not that it's triggering, it's that it's fundamentally lacking relevant substance and I don't think the quality of your post is enough. You write like you were writing Facebook comments or twitter rants, not having a philosophical discussion.

If you can't raise the quality of your writing to a point where the discussion is a progression of ideas, you are merely ranting your emotional opinions. If you can't see that it's the way you write and your attitude that's the problem here, you might not have the ability for self-reflection.

I can't work out well-composed arguments from bullish attitudes and rant-like rhetoric. It's pretty much beneath me and is beneath anyone interested in proper philosophical debate manners. — Christoffer

Wow...really tough to get rid of you and your "I am better than you" attitude, Chris. Okay, in my estimation, that is a factor in your favor.

For the record, "the quality of my writing" has gotten me op ed pieces and op ed sized pieces published in major newspapers across the country...including the BIG one...The New York Times. It got me a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine. ALL of which were published without so much as a single comma being changed.

So do not give me any of your "I am better than you" shit about quality of writing.

I considered your comments above to be bullshit...and I so described them. It was a shortcut...a cut-to-the-chase kind of thing.

If you want to climb down off your high horse and actually discuss it with me...do it. If, instead, you want to continue to tell me that you are not going to have a discussion with me...BY HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH ME...have a ball.

I am enjoying this as much as I would a discussion on the actual topic.