Yes, I am choosing to read your posts, and I chose to read your post which contained that shameful opinion of yours which wasn't worth expressing to one such as me, on a philosophy forum such as this. It was a reply to me, which meant that I got a little notification, which I was curious about and hopeful to some extent - naively hopeful, perhaps. But you've let me down, and Clarky Jim has let me down. And it is a real damn pity when I find myself here, in a discussion in the philosophy section of a philosophy forum, faced with "I don't care about the explanation!" on the one hand, and "I know you are, but what am I!" on the other.

Just forget it.

Yes, I am choosing to read your posts — S

So stop, and all your problems are solved.

Yes, like sticking my head in the sand. The ideal solution to any problem. :roll:

if a man or woman had extremely advanced technology and some how managed to pass into higher dimensions (there is a youtube video called "10 dimensions explained"). I believe this would be a logical reason to say there is a god.

if a man or woman had extremely advanced technology and some how managed to pass into higher dimensions (there is a youtube video called "10 dimensions explained"). I believe this would be a logical reason to say there is a god. — James Statter

And you are certainly free to do so.

I, on the other hand, would say being able to do that has absolutely no impact on the question, "Does at least one god exist?"

i feel that you took what i said out of context. Personally i believe somethings in reality are extremely loosely connected and somethings are very tightly connected.

alright i thought about it again and i see what your saying as to how it has nothing to do with the question.

Why rule out other options? Like two or three gods, or one-and-a-half god? Pi gods, anyone?

Can we? As in is it possible? Sure.

But think for a minute. What if Brad Pitt walked into a Wal-Mart. Or a McDonalds? How do you think that would turn out. They'd want to talk to the guy, get an autograph, try to become friends. No one would just do their job and get the man his product quickly and efficiently. And worse. Alot of people, more than you might think, would want to be "the guy who spit in Brad Pitt's burger" .. or worse. Infamy. The natural consolation of those who seek fame yet do not find it.

Now imagine that times... I'd say infinity but factoring in the human comprehension probably times 10... yeah it wouldn't work out so good. I've used a metaphor for it before.

Say you have a 10 million dollar inheritance. You want it to go toward your lifelong interest of I dunno fixing up old buildings.. or something. But you're old and dying. Who do you want it to go to? Someone who knows the money is up for grabs and responds to an ad with all the right qualifications or someone who takes a blind low paying ad for the job because they love the work. Not hard to figure out really.

Haven't ruled out anything...INCLUDING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

I am left to conclude that any AND ALL assertions that “at least one god exists”; “no gods exist”; “it is more likely that at least one god exists than that no gods exist; or “it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists”…

…are nothing more than blind guesses. — Frank Apisa

What do you mean by "blind guess"? Last I heard, a blind guess, in matters such as the one you bring up, is an act of assigning a random value to the probability of certain propositions being true.

I believe this isn't the way theists/atheists go about forming their beliefs. There are many arguments for/against god's existence and these seem to provide the bedrock for god-beliefs. This is a far cry from the randomness of blind guessing.

You are free to think of "blind guess" whatever way you choose.

My idea of a blind guess is any guess not made based on reason, logic, math, or science.

If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it.

Though there are many gods in the Bible: El, Yahweh and Jesus' pop in particular, who are very different. It's a mistake to amalgamate them into one guy as most people do, an artifact.

And many others also, eg the gods of Egypt are mentioned in the Bible, as well as others. They are just not the gods of the Hebrews. But they play their part.

If you do not understand what a person means when using "the god of the Bible"...I doubt the conversation is going to make much sense.

If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa

For God:

1. The ontological argument for god

2. The argument from design

3. The Kalam cosmolgical argument

4. The prime mover argument

5. The fine-tuning argument

Against God:

1. The problem of evil

TheMadFool
6k
If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa

For God:

1. The ontological argument for god

2. The argument from design

3. The Kalam cosmolgical argument

4. The prime mover argument

5. The fine-tuning argument

Against God:

1. The problem of evil — TheMadFool

Okay. Let's discuss them.

I'll lead off.

NOT A ONE OF THEM LEADS TO, "Therefore there is a God" or "Therefore there are no gods."

NOT A ONE OF THEM LEADS TO: "Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one."

Not a one of them!

If one of them did...no conversation would be taking place on the issue.

You go.

God… fact or fiction
To say God does/doesn’t exist, must start with a description of the word “god.”
Dictionary explanation: according to certain religion, a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or humans.
If a poll was taken as to the question (does God exist) the majority of believers would be greater than non-believers.
By weighing the (+/- effect) is divided in two groups religious leaders vs scientist. What you get is a potpourri census that neither can prove. There is also a third factor to consider, the impossible made possible (miracles) which requires faith that a request is granted without seeing how it was accomplish without the scientist able to answer what the eyes see and the ears hear. Is the name “God” relevant to what occur, something that no-one can explain, yet many are witnesses to such phenomena. Therefore, the ancient or elders with respect, acknowledge, this act that only an “unseen force/God” could do.

Oh I know what they mean: an amalgamation of El, Yahweh, Jesus, the Holy Ghost and what else... Like a guy who would have read the Three Musketeers a bit too fast, and would think that Aramis, Portos, Athos, d’Artagnan and Richelieu are all one and the same.

All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence.

I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science. — Frank Apisa

A person tells you there are blue pigs everywhere in Australia and another tells you that, if you're lucky, you might spot an orange echidna. You spend a year travelling in Australia and see no blue pigs and no orange echidnas. The quote above is equivalent to saying that blue pigs and orange echidnas are still equally likely, i.e. if you did not see a blue pig, there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia, and if you did not see an orange echidna there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia.

This is neither logical, reasonable, mathematical or scientific. If blue pigs are supposed to be abundant and orange echidnas rare, the probability of encountering a blue pig is much higher than encountering an orange echidna, thus the probability of not encountering a blue pig much lower than the probability of not encountering an orange echidna.

Neither actually exist, to my knowledge and experience (I was lucky enough to spot a few normal echidnas), and neither have been disproven by my experience (it's still possible that Australia is teeming with blue pigs and I was just unlucky), however: the claim that Australia is teeming with blue pigs is now less likely than the claim about the rare orange echidna.

This is, in fact, how science works. We calculate the probability of a null hypothesis being true given the experimental data. Probability theory being a logical, reasonable field of logical, reasonable mathematics.

If God A is omnipresent, eternal, and interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, it has a much higher probability of being detected scientifically than God B who was very tiny, billions of light years away, lived only for one second, and had the scattering cross-section of a neutrino. That is, the probability of not detecting God A ever is much lower than the probability of not detecting God B. Given that neither God A nor God B have been detected ever, God A is a less likely proposition than God B.

And the notion that God A is omnipresent, eternal, interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, but is not detectable unless He so chooses is non-scientific, and can be dismissed by scientists on those grounds.

If God A can be said to be less likely than God B, then it cannot be said that, unless proven or disproven, God cannot be said to be more likely to exist or not exist on scientific grounds (or indeed mathematical grounds), whatever characteristics God might have.

As an extra: any monotheistic God has a vanishingly small probability of existence if undetected, since there are an infinite number of possible monotheistic Gods and, by definition, at most one can exist, making the monotheistic God's probability of existence infinitesimal on mathematical grounds, again, no matter His characteristics beyond His monotheism.

Frank Apisa

 All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence.

It might help to look at the history. 'God' or more specifically the concept of god was invented by man. No question. Hence only the concept of god exists. End of story.

Can a believer explain reality by referring to a basic tenet (such as God/Gods) that can be collectively shared and agreed upon - Yes.

Can a scientist explain reality by referring to a basic tenet (observation) that can be collectively shared and agreed upon - Yes.

Does a believer have a methodology to support their belief - yes. Doctrine, lifestyle, contemplation, prayer, anecdotal support, ethical principles, argument and logic.

Does a scientist have a methodology to support their belief -yes. Scientific method, experiment, observation, repeatability of result, hypothesis, ethical principles, argument and logic.

Does a believer observe their belief in action, function or influence of reality. Yes -creation, free will/karma etc, morals, justice, interpersonal relationships, social structures, applicability.

Does a scientist observe their beliefs in action , function or influence of reality. Yes -laws, dynamics, behaviours, interactions, applicability tecnology.

PARADIGM; is a believers understanding of God as reality subject to change, revision, redefinition and incorporation with current conditions? Can new interpretations and explanations be raised to satisfy current argument - Yes; new religions, interpretations etc.

PARADIGM; is a scientists understanding of the laws of nature of reality subject to change, revision, redefinition and incorporation with current conditions? Can new interpretations and explanations be raised to satisfy current argument -Yes. New theories, hypothesis and discoveries.

STABILITY; does the use of the concept of God stand up against the passage of time. Has the argument remained conserved despite millennia of discussion - neither denying or confirming Gods existence? Yes

STABILITY; Does a scientists use of the concept of observation stand up against the passage of time. Has the argument remain conserved despite
Millennia of discussion - neither finding an ultimate answer nor denying that one is achievable by these means? Yes.

The way I see it is that the spiritual and the scientific are observing the same thing - reality. But reality is dynamic and thus can be reasonably explained by either discipline. It is based on what the of evidence satisfies your trust in an explanation. Religion and science are not incompatible and it would be more constructive to unite the two through an understanding of consciousness rather than pointing out the innumerable differences that distinguish them.

If I am the only person who believes in a God and observe the entity all around me is that God real to me? Or am I delusional. If everyone believes in that God is it now real to me or still a delusion? The best description we have for reality is that which most people can agree upon.
Objective reality as perceived by subjects is the culmination of all subjective experiences.

So I believe we are in a constant evolving transition through history from "how reality is" when we do not have knowledge and thus control to "how reality does" when we do have knowledge and control. Going from that which is subject to the all knowing all powerful to that which is the all knowing/powerful.

:up:

And some say 'they neither Believe nor Disbelieve'; that's all well and good, as it is indistinguishable from, in effect, (passively) Disbelieving in practice - — 180 Proof

:mask:

TheMadFool
6k
↪Frank Apisa All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence. — TheMadFool

They ARE blind guesses.

And there is PLENTY of evidence that at least one god exists...just as there is PLENTY of evidence that no gods exist.

We humans simply cannot tell which it is.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, the stuff we humans know about and the stuff we do not know about is evidence of "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

We just cannot figure out which it is.

That does not stop some people from blindly guessing that at least one does exist that none exist; that it is more likely that one exists than that none exist; or that no gods exist than that at least one does.

All of them are blind guesses.

TMF,,,think this over carefully. It is important.

A person tells you there are blue pigs everywhere in Australia and another tells you that, if you're lucky, you might spot an orange echidna. You spend a year travelling in Australia and see no blue pigs and no orange echidnas. The quote above is equivalent to saying that blue pigs and orange echidnas are still equally likely, i.e. if you did not see a blue pig, there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia, and if you did not see an orange echidna there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia.

This is neither logical, reasonable, mathematical or scientific. If blue pigs are supposed to be abundant and orange echidnas rare, the probability of encountering a blue pig is much higher than encountering an orange echidna, thus the probability of not encountering a blue pig much lower than the probability of not encountering an orange echidna.

Neither actually exist, to my knowledge and experience (I was lucky enough to spot a few normal echidnas), and neither have been disproven by my experience (it's still possible that Australia is teeming with blue pigs and I was just unlucky), however: the claim that Australia is teeming with blue pigs is now less likely than the claim about the rare orange echidna.

This is, in fact, how science works. We calculate the probability of a null hypothesis being true given the experimental data. Probability theory being a logical, reasonable field of logical, reasonable mathematics.

If God A is omnipresent, eternal, and interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, it has a much higher probability of being detected scientifically than God B who was very tiny, billions of light years away, lived only for one second, and had the scattering cross-section of a neutrino. That is, the probability of not detecting God A ever is much lower than the probability of not detecting God B. Given that neither God A nor God B have been detected ever, God A is a less likely proposition than God B.

And the notion that God A is omnipresent, eternal, interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, but is not detectable unless He so chooses is non-scientific, and can be dismissed by scientists on those grounds.

If God A can be said to be less likely than God B, then it cannot be said that, unless proven or disproven, God cannot be said to be more likely to exist or not exist on scientific grounds (or indeed mathematical grounds), whatever characteristics God might have.

As an extra: any monotheistic God has a vanishingly small probability of existence if undetected, since there are an infinite number of possible monotheistic Gods and, by definition, at most one can exist, making the monotheistic God's probability of existence infinitesimal on mathematical grounds, again, no matter His characteristics beyond His monotheism. — Kenosha Kid

What on Earth does any of that have to do with the comment I made that you quoted?

Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."

Please deal with that.

A Seagull
489
↪TheMadFool Frank Apisa

 All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence.

It might help to look at the history. 'God' or more specifically the concept of god was invented by man. No question. Hence only the concept of god exists. End of story. — A Seagull

Okay...now prove that the concept of god was invented by man...rather than instilled in man by a god of some sort.

So I believe we are in a constant evolving transition through history from "how reality is" when we do not have knowledge and thus control to "how reality does" when we do have knowledge and control. Going from that which is subject to the all knowing all powerful to that which is the all knowing/powerful. — Benj96

Thank you for sharing what you "believe."

But I am interested in the question being asked in the OP...and what I had to say about it.

They ARE blind guesses.

And there is PLENTY of evidence that at least one god exists...just as there is PLENTY of evidence that no gods exist.

We humans simply cannot tell which it is.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, the stuff we humans know about and the stuff we do not know about is evidence of "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

We just cannot figure out which it is.

That does not stop some people from blindly guessing that at least one does exist that none exist; that it is more likely that one exists than that none exist; or that no gods exist than that at least one does.

All of them are blind guesses.

TMF,,,think this over carefully. It is important. — Frank Apisa

Imagine the following scenario: Someone comes up to you with a closed opaque box in his hand and says, "what's in this in box?" The only answer you can give has to be a guess, a blind guess. Then this person shows you a second box and says, "there's something in this box. It's not an animal. what's in it?" Here, you have some information to go on and although you may ultimately have to make a guess, certain possibilities are ruled out, no? In other words, you employ logic with the second box, an option unavailable to you with the first box. I think the issue of god's existence is akin to the second box scenario.

By the way, why do you say, "think this over carefully. It is important." :chin:

Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."

Please deal with that. — Frank Apisa

I did. I even explicitly bring it back to the quote within the text. Did you not really read it? Too long? Brevity is not my strong suit.

Either way, the assertions regarding relative likelihood are poorly chosen, patently false in fact. That is my gist. If you want the details, refer to my previous response.

god(s) exists — Frank Apisa

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct nonsense sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth value
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" (or gods)? I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence?

Going back to the two schools of thought I referenced earlier? You might say that of course fictional characters do not exist so this sentence is false - but to my way of thinking any sentence in the form "[some-non-existent-fictional-character] exists" is incoherent based on the definitions of the words.

I cannot make a blind guess about the sentence"God exists" any more than I can make a guess about "[n-leggedness] drinks procrastination". Does at least one [n-leggedness] drink procrastination? Do no [n-legednesses] drink procrastination? All are nonsense questions.