So you would be happily agnostic as to the existence of, say, four-sided triangles?

Cause is over-rated. — Banno

Memories make us insecure - I'd prefer to be a machine.

Now, some may say, without memories we'd experience less sensations like those involved in sex, but they underestimate the mind.

Banno
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa So you would be happily agnostic as to the existence of, say, four-sided triangles? — Banno

Of course not.

Is that the level on which you want to discuss this?

I do not want to take up your time if you think I am a simpleton...or an unworthy discussion partner.

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.)

that is, time started with the big bang. — Banno

I see. That would mean a creation event occurred. Kind of like when St. Augustine proclaimed that the world was made with time and not in time which is precisely the modern scientific position.

Surely you don't believe that do you?

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

Let's stick to the question of "Are there any gods involved in the REALITY of existence?"

My response is:

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.

That is an agnostic position on the question, Jorn. If you see something irrational about anything in it, let's discuss it.

: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

...so, where is there a coherent presentation of what it is to be God?

Why not?

Again, that is what the mathematics of the big bang theory describes.

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.

:up:

Theologians have had over 2000 years by now to prove existence of God, or gods without any success. God fails to be empirically provable, also irrational in many ways, such as omnipotence-, all powerful-, and all-loving-beings simply do not exist, and it drives us to paradoxes.

Because suffering, pain, and poverty there is no place in God that could have any control over it.

Satan is more powerful entity than God, according to Christians most people go in hell, therefore Satan has more power over mankind. Also Satan seem to share similar entities with God, such as control over people, creating demons (omnipotence). Obviously if God existed, he would make end to suffering and Satan. But God and Satan seem to be same powerful entities, because either can have fully provoke each-others.

Perhaps God is just some narcissistic being like human, who wants own best and doesn't care about other beings, or even have control over global problems, such as pandemics,wars, and poverty.

Generally human seem to be more powerful, omnipotence, and loving-being that God itself.

God is human.

↪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.

This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors sleight of hand to convince believers in scientism that scientism has the big questions answered and that it is irrational to delve any deeper into them.

"nothing to see here"

This is nothing more than a smoke and mirrors sleight of hand to convince believers in scientism that scientism has the big questions answered and that it is irrational to delve any deeper into them. — Punshhh

...and that is nothing like an argument.

"nothing to see here" — Punshhh

Indeed.

...and that is nothing like an argument.

So tell me, what exploded in the Big Bang? Or was it Nothing that did I it?

"nothing to see here"
— Punshhh
Indeed.

Therefore no God.

Again, nothing to see here.

what exploded in the Big Bang? — Punshhh

Everything.

Everything.

All at once?

More smoke and mirrors.

Sure.

Sure

So everything came into existence when everything exploded.

So it's everything all the way down?

I'm not seeing a point to this discussion.

I'm not seeing a point to this discussion.

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).

If you like. I don't see any need to justify atheism; it's theism that needs, and lacks, justification.

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...

...and on the other we have Punshh claiming "it's all smoke and mirrors"...

And you want to be take seriously?

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...

None of that explains our origins, all it does is describe the world we find ourselves in.
So yes " "it's all smoke and mirrors" ".

None of that explains our origins, — Punshhh

Well, that's just wrong. It's an answer that you do not like, to be sure.

Try this: what remains unexplained?

None of that explains our origins — Punshhh

What do you believe "explains our origins" requires or entails?

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

There is NO way to KNOW if there is at least one god...or if there are none.

There is NO way to KNOW if it is more probable that there is at least one god than that there are none...,or vice versa.

One CANNOT get to any of those things through reason...or logic...or science...or math.

Theists blindly guess one way...and most atheists blindly guess the other way.



But there is no reasoning or logic invoved...just guesswork.

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

I have no idea of "what it is like to be God.

I was asked for a coherent definition of what I mean by gods...I gave it.

I gave it. — Frank Apisa

Where? I must have missed it

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

You are correct, you cannot speak for them.

By the same token I cannot speak for "pretty much every other human being on this planet."

But I can speak for myself...and I have.

I suspect most people who want to assert that there are no gods do not want to talk with people who DO offer a coherent "definition" of gods...but rather prefer to debate people who offer incoherent, babbling notions of gods with robes, sandals, rules, fury, rewards, and (most of all) punishments.

Atheists, in general, want to argue with theist the way bullies want to pick on people smaller and weaker than themselves.

That I cannot help you with.

Banno
8.7k
I gave it.
— Frank Apisa

Where? I must have missed it — Banno

Previous page.

You didn't miss it. You are trying to be cute...and pretend my response was not coherent.

It was coherent. What it wasn't, Banno, was the kind of thing you want to argue against.

Like in my comment above...you want to argue with the weak.

Can't help you there. But if you want to have a discussion with someone who is willing to give respect when it is given in return...we can talk.