Hitchen's razor. — S
Exactly what I think. I doubt that there are many atheists who are without some doubt about their atheism.Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism. — S
What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa
I play no tricks. I merely asked a question. — Shamshir
What I have done is removed the separation. — Shamshir
The concept of sound is sound itself. — Shamshir
Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object — Shamshir
I asked a question. You did not answer.No, you presented an argument, and I explained the problem with it. — S
Maybe. Maybe not.Which is a nonsensical thing to do. — S
Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may.No it isn't. — S
The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I?You haven't demonstrated that there's an "object", which in this case would be the actual existence of God. — S
The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir
What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not? — Frank Apisa
I have already acknowledged that it is not possible to prove it in intellectual terms. — EnPassant
But is there a kind of knowledge that can be gained in a non intellectual way? — EnPassant
Of course there is. The intellect will not tell you what an orange tastes like. You can only know directly, by eating the orange. Likewise with carnal knowledge. Intellect won't enlighten you. These kinds of knowledge about the world can only be known directly. — EnPassant
If the intellect is concerned only with abstract knowledge then it is confined to a subset of all possible knowledge.
I asked a question. You did not answer. — Shamshir
Maybe. Maybe not. — Shamshir
Then conceptualize over what you cannot imagine and what doesn't exist, if you may. — Shamshir
The object is the filling. The concept of the object is its outline. I explained that, didn't I? — Shamshir
Logic doesn't have anything to do with empirical evidence, it only has to do with formal implication/inference. That's even the case with so-called informal logic. It's just that there we're dealing with logic in natural language rather than a strictly formal language. — Terrapin Station
He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. — Devans99
I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa
Herein lies the difference.
I say, I can draw a circle and I can draw a circle because a circle exists. If a circle does not exist, I cannot draw it. I cannot think of it and I cannot make any concepts of it, because it does not exist.
What you say is that you can think of pink elephants, you can even draw one - but you do not see any pink elephants. They are nowhere to be found! Hence they are not evident.
I agree, it is not evident. Neither is the sculpture, before it is sculpted. — Shamshir
When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. — Daniel Cox
I know he's lying about the part of believing. — Daniel Cox
Pattern-chaser
980
I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot. — Frank Apisa
How wise, and how unusual! Most will say, without thinking, (for example) that the probability of the world our senses show us NOT being Objective Reality is 'vanishingly small' or even non-existent. The truth is that, in matters such as this (and there are more of them than you might think), we don't even have a starting point for calculating an actual statistical probability for this. It's refreshing to see at least one other person aware of this. :smile: — Pattern-chaser
Daniel Cox
104
↪Frank Apisa
Hi Frank, we know people can be idolized or godded. — Daniel Cox
Precisely. I am missing the point.You're still missing the point. — S
I deny the very existence of "empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause." — Pattern-chaser
We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa
We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa
Which you haven't done. You've just produced a number of wildly controversial bare assertions. No reasonable person would find that compelling. — S
- The Big Bang theory... — Devans99
You haven't addressed the possibility that effects must have causes. Never mind the problem of obtaining eye witness (empirical) evidence of the BB, and so on.... — Pattern-chaser
EnPassant
104
We are talking about whether gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa
No. We are talking about the kinds of arguments for/against God's existence. Those kinds of arguments depend on what is considered to be 'rational'. The question for debate is about why atheists and theists cannot agree on which rationale to use.
We are not discussing what an orange tastes like...or what it feels like to bang some movie star. — Frank Apisa
We are talking about what is acceptable as a rationale. What is acceptable is in terms of knowledge. That there is a non rational kind of knowledge is an important point because it shows that things can be known by consciousness alone. People who demand elementary proofs dismiss knowledge that is gained purely by consciousness, yet I have shown that this kind of knowledge exists. — EnPassant
You're persistently pushing this self-serving exceptionalism, that the existence or non-existence of God cannot be determined by mundane rules of logic — TheSageOfMainStreet
If you can't do any better than being slippery and evasive, — TheSageOfMainStreet
What cult are you talking about?primitive superstitious cult. — TheSageOfMainStreet
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.