Obviously, since "gods" is undefined, this statement is nonsense.Obviously to prove there are no gods... — Frank Apisa
Only because your use of "gods" is undefined, that is, the search parameters for any one or classification of your purported "gods" are undefined, which implies having to search "everywhere" for no-defined-thing. :roll:one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none.
180 Proof
821
So picking-up from where we left off ... :eyes:
Obviously to prove there are no gods...
— Frank Apisa
Obviously, since "gods" is undefined, this statement is nonsense.
one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none.
Only because your use of "gods" is undefined, that is, the search parameters for any one or classification of your purported "gods" are undefined, which implies having to search "everywhere" for no-defined-thing. :roll:
And that, Frankie, proves you're just blowing nonsense out of your ass. Just merely confused, pedestrian, unbelief ... obviously, not even (Huxleyan) agnosticism. — 180 Proof
This from a man who says, in effect, he neither believes nor disbelieves - neither knows nor does not know - whether &÷#@$% exists or does not exist. :roll:Enjoy your self-deceit, 180. — Frank Apisa
All you've got, Frankie, are vapid assertions absent supporting evidence or sound arguments. You're not laughing "at me" but with me at the forum trolls. Are you one of them? (Pardon the snark.) :smirk:And don't mind me laughing at you.
180 Proof
822
And don't mind me laughing at you.
— Frank Apisa
All you've got, Frankie, are vapid assertions absent supporting evidence or sound arguments. You're not laughing "at me" but with me at the forum trolls. Are you one of them? (Pardon the snark.) :smirk: — 180 Proof
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
Is there any chance of re-writing these principles in singular form, for the sake of ease? If not, we'll work with what we have. — Antidote
I do not know if gods exist or not;
I do no know if gods exist
I do not know if gods don't exist
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of gods is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect gods cannot exist
I see no reason why gods could exist
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence;
I see no reason that gods must exist
I see no reason why gods would exist
I see no reason that gods are needed to explain existence
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods exist
I do not see enough certainty of evidence to base a "best guess" that gods don't exist
...so I don't.
So I don't make form a view or opinion either way.
Please be patient with me, and please keep in mind I'm as dumb as a lump of wood so I get confused very easily. Can you please confirm where we have gone wrong on the above, so we can put it right, in the view of the agnostic so we understand better what the view point is. — Antidote
Work with what you have. The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa
The part highlighted makes no sense, Anti...and does not follow from what I said. — Frank Apisa
The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many times as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: define the gods - classes or particular ones - at issue for you. :wink:Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.
[ ... ]
What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer? — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
824
Not sure why that answer causes so much consternation with so many...but apparently it does.
[ ... ]
What on Earth does anyone see wrong or wrong-headed about that answer?
— Frank Apisa
This is what's wrong with it. Read dor comprehension, Frank, as many time as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: define the gods - classes or particular ones - at issue for you. :wink: — 180 Proof
Antidote
117
Yes maybe so I'm sure but i can be an asshole like everyone at times.
So are you ready to carry on ? — Antidote
The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god. — Frank Apisa
Antidote
121
The notion of just God...means working with just one idea of a god.
— Frank Apisa
Could you expand on this a little? — Antidote
Pinprick
49
↪Antidote ↪Frank Apisa
Which Dialogue are the two of you reenacting? :lol: — Pinprick
Antidote
122
Okay, so the agnostics position ultimately had to end as it has. And I will tell you, using reason, why this is the case. I'm calling in the scientist again, because I'm just tired. So here it is, tell me if this is wrong, and remember, I'm as dump as a lump of wood so I need simple explanation, and not digressions, so we can keep straight.
So, we created an example of using reason to see if we could prove there was or wasn't a creator. That we did to its conclusion, we couldn't actually prove either, so we concluded both the Christian (believer) and Atheist (non believer) were actually on the same side because they were both on the side of "faith". It couldn't be proved, so each had to use "faith" to make the conclusion. Nice and simple.
Then the agnostic appeared. Now, our scientist had no idea about this, because he thought the "atheist" and the "Christian" were polar opposites (in relativity). But it turned out the question was really, "Faith" or "No Faith". And the Atheist had faith, as did the Christian. It was the Agnostic that had "no faith". Bear with me please.
Now, unknown to our agnostic, he wasn't using reason. In fact he didn't understand reason, but what he did understand was "logic". What we know about "logic" is this. Firstly, it was a system created by the Ancient Greeks (Plato and the like), the system was created because the Ancient Greeks did not have "faith", far from it. They actually attempted to destroy faith, for whatever reason. The weapon of choice for the Ancient Greeks was "logic".
Now, using the Law of Cause and Effect, we know a few things about Order. That is, a cause creates an effect, creates a cause, etc. The law states, ONE cause creates an effect, it is not possible for a cause to be more than one, because Cause and Effect works like a tree and branch and creates a hierarchy. The "faith" question is always one of "First Cause".
So we look to the beginning of "logic". It was created. In fact, it was created just before 0 AD, dates aren't important. The system of "logic" was created using "reason". We can now say, Reason came first, and gave birth to Logic. Logic therefore can never be the First Cause because it is already an "Effect". As "Logic" was created, it is bound by relativity. You cannot create a logical argument with only one side (I've been telling my wife this for years). Hence why an agnostic needs an "opposite" in order to create an argument. The principles presented were just twisted logic so he could move position as he needed to. Otherwise the agnostic has no position. It is all "logically" good, but as people kept noticing, it is not reasonable.
If you look at wiki, you will see, the starting point for anything in "logic" is "Argument". Those Greeks were clever, but fortunately they weren't clever enough to beat reason. But then they couldn't, because "Reason" gave birth to Logic. The "son" does not come before the "father" that just plain insanity if it did.
The agnostic's don't realise that "logic" is flawed against reason. Reason is always above logic. Plato - Republic is a classic example of this. Reason, like Growth, love etc are a potential attributes of a creator. So, like the soul, as Plato highlighted, it is unbeatable. The Ancient Greeks attempted to use the system of logic to debunk the faith. And this has worked for over 2000 years, to a degree because if you look at the statistics, its not "atheism" that has grown, its "faithlessness" that has grown. And the agnostic represents the "faithless". If the agnostic had a ground to stand on, they could tell us but they can't because the starting point in "logic" is 2 sides or more.
Logic has two aspects to it, it is relative, because it was created. It has "expression" that's the outside appearance of it, and it has "definition", that's the inside appearance of it. Plato, like the agnostic, plays a little game, using a single letter in the language (remember the Ancient Greeks invented the language we now use, albeit via Latin). The letter in question is "s". This is the difference between "singular" and "plural". Now our scientist couldn't understand why it was so important to keep re-stating "gods" not "god", even when our scientist had mentioned "God". But this is why.
If you mix "singular" expression with "plural" definition (or switch them), you have a mess because the expression and definition have to match otherwise it is illogical. Or disorder, or chaos or whatever, it doesn't matter what its called, what you don't have it order or logic. Now if there is a creator, one very obvious trait is "Order". Everything of the creator is in order.
What struck the scientist was that agnosticism mentions "Gods" in one breath, then describe "God" in another (splitting expression and definition). I don't think this twisted logic is limited to the agnostic. They only been around for a few hundred years, so everything that ascribes to the Ancient Greek logic, will incorporate the error or splitting that which cannot be split.
If there is a creator (it will be by division), the effect of this is "multiplication". In terms of a creator, the plural is always in the effect whereby the cause will always be singular.
So the logic system was framed without a first cause, that was it's intention (logic is faithless). So it is impossible for logic to answer the question of "is there a creator" because logic itself was obviously created. Reason however, has an opportunity to answer the question. That was why we were very careful to stick to reason, and not let logic get in the way and introduce the fundamental error.
I have created another thread "Ancient Greek, Logic and Reason" for those who are interested or have a view on that. Because the Ancient Greeks knew what they were doing, they switched around the positions of "reason" and "logic" in the education system they created.
However, the universal law of Cause and Effect shows us, Reason came first, Logic came after. As the switch is done right at the beginning, or hidden in a tiny letter (devil is always in the detail) most people never even notice it and incorporate it into their thinking / logic. However, our thinking is, and always has been based on Reason, then logic from 0 AD onwards.
Reason = Cause, Logic = Effect. If you have logic without reason, you are in the realms of insanity and the golden rule with that is "you cannot reason with insanity". You can bin them both off (Atheist) or you can have just "reason" Christian, but you cannot have just Logic because we already know, logic was created from reason, and that means its below reason in the causality chain.
The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness).
The agnostic position explains why the Ancient Greeks were very interested in Justice and guilt and the like, because they firmly believed they were God / Gods.
If anyone knows any really clever people (because I'm dumb as lump of wood) pass it on to them and ask them if it's right? Maybe its not, our scientist got it wrong (ish) last night. — Antidote
The position of the Christian = There is a God (by faith).
The position of the Atheist = There is no God. (by faith).
The position of the Agnostic = I am God (faithlessness). — Antidote
This is what's wrong with it. Read for comprehension, Frank, as many times as it takes for you to get the gist. A hint: what is wrong is that you have not defined the gods - classes or particular ones - that you claim not know whether or not they exist; saying "all gods" says nothing definite.What do you mean by "wrong?" Please define it. — Frank Apisa
proposition is the only position an agnostic can't claim or assert. — god must be atheist
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.