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. — TheMadFool
Kenosha Kid
17
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?
I did read it.
Too long?
It was not too long. It just was not germane to the text of mine that you quoted.
— Kenosha Kid
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.
EricH
139
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. — EricH
Thank you for sharing what you "believe — Frank Apisa
Benj96
74
Thank you for sharing what you "believe
— Frank Apisa
Why is "believe" in quotation marks here? It's not exactly up for debate whether beliefs exist nor whether my belief is as permissible as anyone elses. Comes across a little sarcastic/standoff-ish but I dunno I could be reading too much into it. I just gave a perspective on the commonalities between scientific endeavour and religious endeavour. — Benj96
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. — Frank Apisa
OK good point. My best answer would be along the lines that I don't believe in magic. And by 'magic' I mean something that defies logic, analysis and understanding. Instilling an idea into man by God requires magic. Man inventing the idea of God does not require magic. — A Seagull
...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic. — Frank Apisa
Aside from the fact that what you "believe"should not enter the picture at this point...
...I would ask you now to prove that installing an idea into man by a god (NOT God, but a god) requires magic.
Or...anyone here can take a shortcut to showing that I am dead wrong on this issue by simply coming up with a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:
1) Therefore there are no gods.
2) Therefore there is at least one god.
3) Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
4) Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.
I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion. — Frank Apisa
You are making the implicit assumptions that 1. Beliefs are not a part of philosophy and 2. that syllogisms are.
I disagree with both. — A Seagull
show [ ... ] a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:
1) Therefore there are no gods. — Frank Apisa
DEEEstroyed, Frankie. :sweat: Been there, done that. :victory:I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.
"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.
What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists? — Frank Apisa
The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.
Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.
Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion? — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.3k
show [ ... ] a syllogistic P1 and P2 that leads to any of the following C's:
1) Therefore there are no gods.
— Frank Apisa
Predicates define X,
X lacks predicates,
X is undefined;
~X (aka "there is not X").
There are gods,
"gods" lack predicates,
"gods" are undefined;
~there are gods (aka "there are no gods")
I acknowledge that anyone doing that...would essentially be completely destroying my assertion.
DEEEstroyed, Frankie. :sweat: Been there, done that. :victory: — 180 Proof
EricH
140
"We" in your "...as we know it..." means we humans...the currently dominant life form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundreds of billions of galaxies in what may be an infinite megaverse.
What makes you think that qualifies us to know what exists? What makes you suppose that what we can perceive with our senses limits what exists?
— Frank Apisa
Indeed. Humanity has been around in it's present form for, let's say, 40K years. it's only in the last 400 years or so that we're beginning to grasp our place in the universe and our knowledge seems to be exponentially expanding. Likely we know as much about the nature of the universe/existence as an ant walking across a stadium field understands the rules of football. OK, maybe a bit more.
So we can hypothesize that there may be whole modalities (for want of a better word) of experience or existence (for want of better words) that we are not equipped for or ready to understand.
But in these hypothetical futures would there even be such a thing as sentences, grammar, semantics, etc? Would there be any way to even express the sentence "God exists"?
Of course there is no answer to this question - since this question is just as incoherent as the original sentence "God exists" — EricH
A Seagull
492
The assertion that started all this was: One cannot get to "there are no gods" "there is at least one" or the likelihood of either...via logic.
Syllogisms ARE a part of logic...and YOU raised logic.
Are you suggesting that logic should play no part in a philosophical discussion?
— Frank Apisa
Certainly logic is important but it needs to be rigorous. Syllogisms are not, IMO, logically rigorous.
See earlier thread : https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/414510 — A Seagull
180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa :kiss: you too, Frankie. — 180 Proof
180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa So does my impeccable logic. Respect goes both ways. Don't be a spoiled sport, Frankie; it's not like it's the first time I've blown down your silly house of cards. Btw, I'll be 57 in a few months. Call me "kid" if that makes you feel better. :smirk: — 180 Proof
180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Fair enough, Frank. Anyway, saying my "syllogism was an abomination" doesn't make it so; more show, less tell works best when defending or criticizing arguments. — 180 Proof
Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question. — Frank Apisa
EricH
141
Are there any gods involved in the REALITY is such a question.
— Frank Apisa
And how do we define the word "gods" and "reality" in such a way that the question makes any coherent sense?
Other folks on the forum have said this better than I - all religious talk is a form of poetry. Now I think that I appreciate a good poem as much as the next person. Poetry can be beautiful and it can inspire people to do great and/or terrible things. But the words "true" and "false" do not apply to a poem. We cannot subject a poem to the sort of "either this or that" analysis that you are attempting to do.
Anyway, as you can see, we're looping around here saying the same thing in different words. I'll give you last word here - if you want it that is . . . :smile:
Oh - and thank you for the kind words of praise. — EricH
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.