jorndoe
873
The most common use of the term "God" (by far) is in reference to whatever religious scriptures.
Not sure how to calculate the probability of those old, sumptuous stories being literal history, but I'd say rather unlikely.
As (mere) characters in stories, a whole lot of fantastic, fictional beings exist, that come to life in the heads of people. — jorndoe

That's the reason I use "gods."

Since this is a philosophy forum, there are other special uses of the term "god" (or in plural), though they'd have to be related to the most common use in some way or other, yes?
These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference; otherwise we're asked to calculate the plausibility of the independent existence of whatever vague, nebulous entities that come to mind when invoking the words.
Or, are we just talking (ontologized) abstract objects (Platonia style)? — Jorndoe

I'm talking "gods."

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

TheMadFool
6k
Not that I'm a mathematician or a logician or anything worth its salt but Baye's Theorem seems to come up with the goods insofar as the OP's query is concerned:

H = Hypothesis (that god exists)
E = Evidence observed

P(X) = probability that X is true

P(X/Y) = probability that X is true given thaf Y is true

P(H/E) = [P(H) × P(E/H)]/{[P(H) × P(E/H)] × [P(~H) × P(E/~H)]} — TheMadFool

I suck at math.

But I can see that if the H is changed to (no gods exist)...

...we can come to the same whatever.

And given that "...given that Y is true" sounds very contrived...gratuitous or self-serving.

Who proclaimed that Y is true...some god?

Everyone participating...thank you very much for putting forward the effort. This subject truly interests me...and I appreciate your help.

Not much to go on .
Maybe somewhat antropocentric/morphic, conducive to people imagining whatever, ...
On par with The Matrix, Bostrom's hypothesis, "real dreamworlds", nondescript (panen)deism, what-have-you, ...
On the other hand, atemporal mind ("outside it all") is incoherent nonsense, so that's one out anyway.
What does it take to be labeled a god/God anyway?
If both what is said, and the negation, are consistent with attainable evidence, then further knowledge thereof is unattainable, and, so, yeah, calculations are another timewaster.
Differentiation makes a difference.

Thank you for your opinion. I am getting the impression that you think this discussion is not worthwhile.

Okay. That happens.

Perhaps we will meet in another thread where you will be more comfortable with the subject matter.

@Frank Apisa

In my opinion, science has determined facts about the universe. This isn’t to say we know everything about the universe, but some things we can be certain of. Of these facts, all are physical in nature. If asserting that at least one God exists violates any of these facts, it is very unlikely to be true, because experience has shown us that these facts have never been violated. To say that the existence of at least one God is just as plausible or likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is to deny the effectiveness of science. IOWs, asking me to accept that the existence of at least one God is just as likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is also asking me to discard all that is known about the universe. And you’re asking me to do this without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it seems to me that it is more likely that our scientific facts are in fact factual, and that the God hypothesis is highly unlikely to be true.

Pinprick
234
@Frank Apisa

In my opinion, science has determined facts about the universe. This isn’t to say we know everything about the universe, but some things we can be certain of. Of these facts, all are physical in nature. If asserting that at least one God exists violates any of these facts, it is very unlikely to be true, because experience has shown us that these facts have never been violated. To say that the existence of at least one God is just as plausible or likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is to deny the effectiveness of science. IOWs, asking me to accept that the existence of at least one God is just as likely as the nonexistence of all Gods is also asking me to discard all that is known about the universe. And you’re asking me to do this without presenting any evidence whatsoever. Therefore it seems to me that it is more likely that our scientific facts are in fact factual, and that the God hypothesis is highly unlikely to be true. — Pinprick

C'mon, Pinprick. You are smarter than this.

Even you said it early...of the "facts" we think we know (humans have been fooled about that through the years)..."all are physical in nature."

Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us.

Any guesses about whether gods exist or not (or for that matter, whether any non-physical beings exist) is nothing but a guess. And just as pre-history people made guesses about the nature of things that we find laughable today...perhaps all that science stuff you are touting will be laughable to humans of a couple hundred years from now.

Guess if you want to that there are no gods. Guess if you want to that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...but if you are going to pretend those guesses are any more logical or scientific than guesses that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one...

...you are kidding yourself.

Let's discuss it further. This is good stuff.

Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us. — Frank Apisa

All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not.

And just as pre-history people made guesses about the nature of things that we find laughable today...perhaps all that science stuff you are touting will be laughable to humans of a couple hundred years from now. — Frank Apisa

Some of it may be, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we’re right about? Electromagnetism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is inertia or thermodynamics. We understand/know some fundamental things about the world we live in.

Pinprick
235
Well...perhaps there are "facts" that are not physical in nature. Perhaps there are "facts" that humans cannot discern. Perhaps we are not nearly as advanced as we think we are. Perhaps we are to truly intelligent beings...what ants are to us.
— Frank Apisa

All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not. — Pinprick

You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math.

Some of it may be, but wouldn’t you agree that some things we’re right about? Electromagnetism isn’t going anywhere, and neither is inertia or thermodynamics. We understand/know some fundamental things about the world we live in. — Pinprick

Yeah...and perhaps gravity.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist.

BOTTOM LINE: We cannot calculate the probability of "there is a GOD" "there are no gods" "it is more likely one way or the other."

We simply cannot do it.

And we cannot come to any of those things by logic. Give it a try if you think you can. Here is the C:

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. (Choose the other side if you prefer.)

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it.

Best to just leave it at "I do not know."

All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not. — Pinprick

Spot-on. :up: Frank's something of a radical relativist, or dogmatic skeptic like the proto-p0m0 Gorgias, (which, of course, is self-refuting), for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves.

Frank's obstinately incorrigible on this point: every (theistic) g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains.

So until he acquaints himself with e.g. Sextus Empiricus, or Hume, or Popper/Feyerabend or Haack, Frank's bound to keep on mistaking 'equipollence' where there isn't any and unfortunately drawing epistemic or logical 'false equivalences' that mislead him into disbelieving "seeing faces" in clouds and the clouds themselves and/or just missing the forest fire for unburnt trees, etc.)

180 Proof
1.3k
All of that can be true, but it misses the crux of the issue; that the existence of a god violates physics. At the moment I have every reason to believe in science, and no reason to believe something that contradicts it. If there was some justification that could explain rationally why science is incorrect, then and only then would both propositions be considered to have an equal probability of being true. But as it stands, belief in the existence of a God requires absolute faith, whereas science does not.
— Pinprick
Spot-on. :up: Frank's something of a radical relativist, or dogmatic skeptic like the proto-p0m0 Gorgias, (which, of course, is self-refuting), for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves.

Frank's obstinately incorrigible on this point: every (theistic) g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains.

So until he acquaints himself with e.g. Sextus Empiricus, or Hume, or Popper/Feyerabend or Haack, Frank's bound to keep on mistaking 'equipollence' where there isn't any and unfortunately drawing epistemic or logical 'false equivalences' that mislead him into disbelieving "seeing faces" in clouds and the clouds themselves and/or just missing the forest fire for unburnt trees, etc.) — 180 Proof

BALONEY!

Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue by expressing a reasonable P1 and P2 to reach a C of:

Therefore there is a God.

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

You cannot do it...I realize that and so do you.

"... for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves."
— 180 Proof

BALONEY! — Frank Apisa

Again, making my point. :smirk:

"... g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains."
— 180 Proof

Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue ... You cannot do it. — Frank Apisa

:up:

Thanks, @Pinprick!

180 Proof
1.3k
"... for whom every good argument is, at best, just "a guess"; it's lost on him, apparently, that his objections are only "guesses" too, and are almost never even arguments - good or bad - themselves."
— 180 Proof

BALONEY!
— Frank Apisa
Again, making my point. :wink:

"... g/G = magic, and magic is inconsistent with - contrary to - physics, and physics obtains in the absence of wholesale falsification; therefore no (theistic) g/G obtains."
— 180 Proof

Any one of you could show me to be totally wrong on this issue ... You cannot do it.
— Frank Apisa
:up:

Thanks, Pinprick! — 180 Proof

I'll wait for the P1 and P2. They will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years...and NBEVER has had anything that comes close.

Mostly attempts devolve into mocking the question...which it what is happening here.

... will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years. — Frank Apisa

Well, sir, Onan's got nothing on you. Carry on ...

180 Proof
1.3k
... will never come. I've been doing this for about 40 years.
— Frank Apisa
Well, sir, Onan's got nothing on you. Carry on ... — 180 Proof

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot, so Onan comes on the scene. My aunt's parakeet has nothing to do with this. (She named her parakeet Onan, because he spilled his seed on the ground.)

If you could defeat the argument... — Frank Apisa

If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrums. I've not ever tried to persuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up:

180 Proof
1.3k
If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof

You've even got the "Onan" analogy wrong.

My immediate contention is that you cannot logically show that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one (or vice versa)...and it is obvious that you cannot.

That seems to be upsetting you.

Calm down...and deal with it. Best you just acknowledge that you cannot. But you do not seem to be the type to do something like that. If I am correct, it is a trait you share with the current President of the United States.

Trolling and projecting again. Please, Frank, don't be a bore too. :shade:

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Trolling and projecting again. Please, Frank, don't be a bore too. :shade: — 180 Proof

I am not trolling. I am responding to posts here in a thread I started.

If you sense a troll...perhaps you are detecting....YOU.

C'mon. Kick your game into second gear, at least. You are chugging.

If you could defeat the argument...
— Frank Apisa
If you could show any of my arguments on any thread have not defeated your position - I've given you a lot of targets to take shots at - you would have, Frank, but you can no more defend your position with a valid argument than you can soundly defeat my (or almost any member's) counter arguments. All you ever do is deny deny deny anything anyone expresses that you don't agree with and/or understand with what amounts to "no no no" tantrum. I've not ever tried to pursuade you out of your confusion, only expose you as a specimen of garden-variety, anti-philosophical, dogmatic confusion for public display. No "wise men" or "wise women" here, friend, only fools of varying degrees of self-awareness (Dunning-Kruger effect notwithstanding), or at different levels of recovery. So I'll keep on casting my pearls, sir, and you keep on spilling your "no no no" seed. :up: — 180 Proof

:100:

So accurate, except Ive come to realise Frank is mentally ill, dementia, delusions of grandeur or Bi-polar (though its uncommon for episodes to last so long and consistently so maybe not.).
Its obviously very difficult to pin point his actual problem by his posts, but I think its equally obvious that he has some kind of mental illness. To that end, he deserves our pity rather than our derision. You should just let him be dude, I really dont think he can help himself. Engagement usually feeds the fantasy.
Apologies for being preachy...I just feel a bit bad for him, hopefully he has family or friends who help him through the worst of it. If he needs to act like he does to cope, the behaviour is easy to ignore and might be a needed mechanism for him.

So accurate, except Ive come to realise Frank is mentally ill, dementia, delusions of grandeur or Bi-polar (though its uncommon for episodes to last so long and consistently so maybe not.).
Its obviously very difficult to pin point his actual problem by his posts, but I think its equally obvious that he has some kind of mental illness. To that end, he deserves our pity rather than our derision. You should just let him be dude, I really dont think he can help himself. Engagement usually feeds the fantasy.
Apologies for being preachy...I just feel a bit bad for him, hopefully he has family or friends who help him through the worst of it. If he needs to act like he does to cope, the behaviour is easy to ignore and might be a needed mechanism for him. — DingoJones

That was lame, Dingo.

BOTTOM LINE: Any of you could destroy my assertion by presenting a reasonable syllogism that shows a conclusion of:

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore there is at least one god.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

YOU CANNOT DO IT...because all of those "conclusions" are not actually are conclusions, they are merely guesses.

My guess is that you guys identify as atheists. The people who identify as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc...acknowledge "I BELIEVE..." Mostly it is just the atheist who pretend that their guesses are actually logic, reason, and science at work.

Laughable. And so...we get something like this. Accusations of mental illness.

Imagine...being so put out by being told the truth...that you must accuse the messenger of mental illness!

Okay — Frank Apisa

You didn't really address anything (just took a guess at what's in my head instead).

These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference — jorndoe

... say, a definition.

Thus, your definition is exactly what any calculation (and much else) depends on, it's all we have to go on in the first place.

Define so that no calculation is feasible, then so be it. Define so that a calculation is feasible, then calculation it is. Define so that this-and-that, then deal with the implications thereof.

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.” — Frank Apisa

Vagueness aside, can you include something that admits calculation?
Better still, some implications that we can go out and check tomorrow (verifications-falsifications)?
Otherwise you've just set things up so that calculation-verification-falsification can't be done in the first place.

jorndoe
876
Okay
— Frank Apisa

You didn't really address anything (just took a guess at what's in my head instead).

These supposed beings aren't shown and don't show, so we'd then need a sufficient characterization of what they're supposed to be instead, something that makes a difference
— jorndoe

... say, a definition.

Thus, your definition is exactly what any calculation (and much else) depends on, it's all we have to go on in the first place.

Define so that no calculation is feasible, then so be it. Define so that a calculation is feasible, then calculation it is. Define so that this-and-that, then deal with the implications thereof.

Beings (or a being) that exist...whether we humans can perceive of that existence or not. An entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”
— Frank Apisa

Vagueness aside, can you include something that admits calculation?
Better still, some implications that we can go out and check tomorrow (verifications-falsifications)?
Otherwise you've just set things up so that calculation-verification-falsification can't be done in the first place. — jorndoe

Okay.

Perhaps we can meet in a discussion some time where we are more in tune.

I have found that some people are uncomfortable discussing this topic and do whatever they can to derail it or simply stop it on the tracks.

I have given a definition of what I mean by "god" when discussing the issue.

I have asserted that I have never had anyone give me a logical argument that arrives at any of these four conclusions:

Therefore there are no gods.

Therefore there is at least one god.

Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none.

If you can present an argument, preferably in syllogistic form, that does, please do it. Otherwise, let's just hold off interaction until we find a topic which we can discuss.

Still doesn't address the comments, . :confused:

Your definition is what sets out whether calculation-verification-falsification can be done from they get-go.

agency [...] that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe — Frank Apisa

If "the universe" includes time, then "agency" isn't a mind.

On the other hand, atemporal mind ("outside it all") is incoherent nonsense, so that's one out anyway. — jorndoe

Besides, "before time" is incoherent.

Okay, maybe we can discuss some good movies we've enjoyed recently.

You start the thread. I promise I will visit and contribute.

You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD. — Frank Apisa

Ok. If you want to argue that God’s existence would not violate physics, then you would need to provide a definition of God that shows that to be true. Good luck.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math. — Frank Apisa

How do you define faith? To me it’s believing something without evidence/reason to do so. It must mean something different for you, unless you think we have no reason/evidence to believe in gravity, etc.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist. — Frank Apisa

Irrelevant. All things we have, or ever will, discover are physical. There’s no way we could ever discover God, if that’s what you’re implying.

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it. — Frank Apisa

P1: Science has discovered physical facts about the universe that are up to this point inviolable.

P2: The existence of God would violate these facts, namely the fact that all real objects and forces are explainable in physical terms, but also causality/determinism.

C: Therefore it is more likely that no Gods exist.

I also have a question for you. If I drop a ball, which is more likely to happen? That it falls towards the Earth, or that it floats up towards the sky? I would also like you to explain your answer.

Thanks, Pinprick! — 180 Proof

:up:

Pinprick
237
You posit that "the existence of a god violates physics." That is as much a "belief" as the theistic guess that there is a GOD.
— Frank Apisa

Ok. If you want to argue that God’s existence would not violate physics, then you would need to provide a definition of God that shows that to be true. Good luck. — Pinprick

You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics. You must mean the "physics" of which we are currently aware. (Even that would be a difficult thing to prove.)

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know.

Actually, most "science" requires as much "faith" as does a "belief in a god." Perhaps you meant math.
— Frank Apisa

How do you define faith? To me it’s believing something without evidence/reason to do so. It must mean something different for you, unless you think we have no reason/evidence to believe in gravity, etc. — Pinprick

I'm willing to go with your definition. But supposing that science has answered questions like "Are there any gods? is an absurdity. If it did, all scientists would be atheists. People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics...acknowledging that it was an unknown.

BUT...perhaps we will discover that things exist that most people think cannot possibly exist.
— Frank Apisa

Irrelevant. All things we have, or ever will, discover are physical. There’s no way we could ever discover God, if that’s what you’re implying. — Pinprick

Not irrelevant at all. Not by a long shot.

I do agree with you, sorta. My guess would be that we will never confirm that a GOD exists...and my guess would be that we will never confirm that no gods exist...never confirm that it is more likely one way or the other.

Just guesses. We humans are crafty, and may find a way to do it.

Thank you for sharing your guess about that.

Please provide the P1 and P2 that gets you to it.
— Frank Apisa

P1: Science has discovered physical facts about the universe that are up to this point inviolable.

P2: The existence of God would violate these facts, namely the fact that all real objects and forces are explainable in physical terms, but also causality/determinism.

C: Therefore it is more likely that no Gods exist. — Pinprick

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh.

I also have a question for you. If I drop a ball, which is more likely to happen? That it falls towards the Earth, or that it floats up towards the sky?

Towards the Earth.

I would also like you to explain your answer. — Pinprick

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand?

I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) makes no sense to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way. — Frank Apisa

Ok, finally we agree! :clap: "Pre-exist ... the universe" is synonymous with "supernatural (... outside of what exists)" which, as you say, "MAKES NO SENSE". So you've come around to what I've claimed all along: the so-called "gods" you keep saying you're "agnostic" about "MAKES NO SENSE" (&÷#@$% as pointed out here) and, therefore, you're not even "agnostic", just inadvertantly GODLESS (i.e. atheos).Great work! :up:

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics... — Frank Apisa

I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank. :sweat:

180 Proof
1.3k
I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) [i[makes no sense[/i] to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
— Frank Apisa
Ok, finally we agree! :clap: "Pre-exist ... the universe" is synonymous with "supernatural (... outside of what exists)" which, as you say, "MAKES NO SENSE". So you've come around to what I've claimed all along: the so-called "gods" you keep saying you're "agnostic" about "MAKES NO SENSE" (&÷#@$% as pointed out here) and, therefore, you're not even "agnostic", just inadvertantly GODLESS (i.e. atheos).Great work! :up: — 180 Proof

If you want to think anything that exists...does not exist...be my guest.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics...
— Frank Apisa
I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank. :sweat:

AS FOR ALBERT EINSTEIN:

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.


AS FOR STEPHEN HAWKING:


In his book on Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III, writes:
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.


AS FOR CARL SAGAN:


In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."


I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:
“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”




Stop with YOUR bull, 180. You are embarrassing yourself.