Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa So you would be happily agnostic as to the existence of, say, four-sided triangles? — Banno
Of course not. — Frank Apisa
jorndoe
975
Of course not.
— Frank Apisa
What about, say, The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)? Solipsism? Dream thought experiments? Intangible hobs that can control the weather? (Heck, Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings?)
With the garage dragon, Sagan alluded to a simple back-pedal-procedure by which existential claims can be (counter)evidence-immunized. Seems rife in religious apologetics, reducing their epistemics to being on par with the above, despite their continuous insistence on existential claims.
It takes ... something to unabatedly continue declaring such claims true. (And thoroughly declaring agnosticism in such matters doesn't seem quite right.) — jorndoe
Try to "reason", Frank, then you might "know or "see" ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391861If you see something IRRATIONAL ...
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 at least one god is 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
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural. — Frank Apisa
↪opt-ae So, think on the question: What is south of the South Pole?
"South" starts at the pole.
""before" starts at the big bang.
Cool, I'm just pointing out that what science (including math), or scientism has determined cannot be used as a justification for atheism, or as an argument against theism (unless the theist is relying on it for their argument).I'm not seeing a point to this discussion.
None of that explains our origins, all it does is describe the world we find ourselves in.SO on one side we have general relativity an the observation that the universe is expanding, leading directly to the mathematics of the big bang, together with the various interpretations...
180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :sweat: :ok:
If you see something IRRATIONAL ...
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 at least one god is 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
Try to "reason", Frank, then you might "know or "see" ... https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/391861 — 180 Proof
Banno
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God? — Banno
Banno
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God? — Banno
EricH
165
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.
— Frank Apisa
I could be missing something here, but your definition of the word "god" does not correspond with the definition used by pretty much every other human being on this planet.
Maybe some of the pantheists out here would agree with you - but not being a pantheist I can't speak for them. — EricH
Banno
8.7k
I gave it.
— Frank Apisa
Where? I must have missed it — Banno
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.