That would be irrelevant since "to quote scripture" does not corroborate the claims of scripture. — 180 Proof

Does quoting a history book corroborate history?

There are no limits to how many premises a syllogism can have. The basic syllogism is three terms, but if you feel it commits a fallacy, I'd be happy to re-arrange them if you like! — 3017amen

Yes, there are. And no, it's no matter of feeling. And if you had any interest in your topic, which it is clear you do not, you'd remedy.

F*** you," every time you hit it, like some kind of obscene squeeze toy. The which, alas and unfortunately, just makes me want to hit it again. Tar-baby is another term. I have trouble even imaging why anyone would want to be, aspire to be, work to be, such a thing. But I think I'll try to keep course with you and keep away. Maybe there's a Bill for this problem. — tim wood

Hahaha, hiding behind ad hominin seems to substantiate my arguments.

Does quoting a history book corroborate history? — 3017amen

:lol: :cry:

No argument? Oh well, I guess you've run out of options. Next atheist!

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)

When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.

You confuse - conflate may be the better word - actuality with likelihood. To paraphrase someone, there's the known, the unknown, the unknowable, and that that cannot be known. You're positing the latter two as knowable and that which can be known. As to private and personal theology, you can believe what you like - and that's been acknowledged repeatedly. But like pigs and parlors and camels and tents, you want in where you do not belong. And that's a failure in your thinking. Believe what you like; is not that enough?

Aside from believing the truth's of a given history book (the Christian Bible), logical inference from cosmology, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science/consciousness, metaphysics, et. al. points to the concept of a God for its meaning.

to the concept of a God for its meaning. — 3017amen

First sense I'm aware of your making. But I wonder if you understand what you wrote?

Timmy! Cognitive science may help you with this phenomenon:

What you are not you cannot perceive to understand, it cannot communicate itself to you-AH Maslow.

One side or the other almost certainly is correct. — Frank Apisa

Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer.

The question posed by theists and atheist in their debate is, does a god exist? The question assumes, typically without any questioning at all, that the only possible answers to the god question are yes or no, exists or not.

It seems neither side has bothered to examine the real world, which overwhelmingly consists of space at every scale. Does space exist? This question is impossible to answer in a yes/no manner because space has properties of both existence and non-existence. Any fair observer who has no dog in the god debate fight can see that the simplistic dualistic yes/no question being argued over in threads like this bears little resemblance to the vast majority of reality.

And, such a person can also see that very few passionate debaters seem to know this, or care about it at all. Observe for yourself. Now that this fatal conflict in the question itself is made known, watch how nothing will change. The male ego head butting contests on the subject of god will continue without interruption.

And not just here on this forum. Some of the greatest minds among us have been sucked in to this pointless dance for centuries. You are in good company. :-)

Some of the greatest minds among us have been sucked in to this pointless dance for centuries.

Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless. One reason is because over 75% of all philosophical domains invoke God as their respective criterion.

Similarly, have you read The Mind of God by theoretical physicist Paul Davies? I should get royalties, but it's a great read... .

Unfortunately or fortunately its not pointless — 3017amen

I would agree that the debate has value in teaching us how ignorant we are. Well, in teaching those who are actually doing philosophy, and not just arguing to be arguing.

And then, having discovered our ignorance, we would have the option to explore how to benefit from it. But such a reality based investigation will be difficult to impossible so long as we are stuck inside a notion that we possess an answer.

...when it comes to Christian apologetics... , another reason why I'm a Christian Existentialist. (Otherwise, I enjoy talking about God.)

because space has properties of both existence and non-existence. — Hippyhead

Could you clarify here space's properties of non-existence? (I think we can set aside the problem of non-existents having properties.) That is, what do you mean?

Could you clarify here space's properties of non-existence? — tim wood

Ok, sure. No mass or weight, no shape or form, no color or taste, invisible etc. That is, not complying with our usual definition of "exists". Nor does space comply with our usual definition of "not exists".

A key problem of the god debate is that it attempts to map simplistic dualistic concepts like "exists vs. not exists" which make perfect useful sense within the extremely limited realm of our daily human experience on to the very largest most fundamental questions about everything everywhere, the scope of most god claims.

The example of space should be teaching us that we can stretch the "exists vs. not exist" paradigm only so far before it starts to fall apart and become irrelevant. And once that happens, the God debate collapses in on itself, because that debate is typically totally dependent upon the "exists vs. not exists" paradigm.

In my view, the above is good news for real philosophers, but bad news for committed ideologues on all sides. Internet discussions are typically dominated by committed ideologues of various flavors, so such inconvenient reasoning is typically swept under the rug so that the food fight may continue.

Which is ok with me.

The following scientific diagram explains the details. :-)

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa You confuse - conflate may be the better word - actuality with likelihood. To paraphrase someone, there's the known, the unknown, the unknowable, and that that cannot be known. You're positing the latter two as knowable and that which can be known. As to private and personal theology, you can believe what you like - and that's been acknowledged repeatedly. But like pigs and parlors and camels and tents, you want in where you do not belong. And that's a failure in your thinking. Believe what you like; is not that enough? — tim wood

Easy on the drugs, Tim. They fuck you up.

You do not get to tell me where I do not belong.

And my comment is correct.

But you don't like the fact that I call your nonsense "guesswork."

Tough.

Hippyhead
31
One side or the other almost certainly is correct.
— Frank Apisa

Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer. — Hippyhead

One side is blindly guessing there are no gods.

One side is blindly guessing there is at least one god.

And you think one side is not almost certainly correct???

Think that over a bit.

Your whole argument as I understand it is that the existence of X is unknown, therefore X could be or X might not be. But many things could be substituted for X. If you like g/God(s), for example, then with equal justice and likelihood there could be anti-g/God(s), or anything else.

As it sits, then, a useless exercise of almost logic. The details matter, and that devolves to defining existence, knowledge, even likelihood and possibility. The only force left to you is a claim of belief, which I, at least, do not challenge. And you're correct, you can oink your way into the parlor if you choose, but there it's just particularly clear that you're a pig.

What you don't grok is that existence is as kryptonite to ideas of God. Your boy above got it right*:

Aside from believing the truths of a given history book (the Christian Bible), logical inference from cosmology, phenomenology, existentialism, cognitive science/consciousness, metaphysics, et. al. points to the concept of a God for its meaning. — 3017amen

Beliefs, concepts, meaning. I commend his remark for your consideration.

*Mostly and mainly, anyway. Only the most ignorant think the Bible a history book.

Only the most ignorant think the Bible a history book. — tim wood

What is the Bible then?

The following scientific diagram explains the details. :-) — Hippyhead

Funny, but I think this (Picasso's) diagram might be more appropriate:

:yawn:

What is the Bible then? — 3017amen

An edited collection of a whole lot of writings by different people at different times in different languages for different purposes. Do you understand that history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right.

An edited collection of a whole lot of writings by different people at different times in different languages for different purposes. Do you understand that history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right.


tim wood

an hour ago — tim wood

1.Okay, good. And what was this edited collection about?
2. Do you mean the history of science?

history is largely a modern invention, and is itself its own science - when done right. — tim wood

Do you mean the history of science? — 3017amen

Does it look like I said that? Where did you get that?

1.Okay, good. And what was this edited collection about? — 3017amen

About what the editors wanted it to be "about." As to history, I don't think there are two words together in the Bible that would pass as history. As to what else, lots of else. What's you point?

As to history, I don't think there are two words together in the Bible that would pass as history. As to what else, lots of else. What's you point? — tim wood

Are you sure? I thought the Bible was an account of historical events that occurred in time, no?

Oh, and speaking of time, you might want to explain the phenomenon of Time after we get through the history lesson. But let's take one at a time, no pun intended.

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa Your whole argument as I understand it is that the existence of X is unknown, therefore X could be or X might not be. But many things could be substituted for X. If you like g/God(s), for example, then with equal justice and likelihood there could be anti-g/God(s), or anything else.

As it sits, then, a useless exercise of almost logic. The details matter, and that devolves to defining existence, knowledge, even likelihood and possibility. The only force left to you is a claim of belief, which I, at least, do not challenge. And you're correct, you can oink your way into the parlor if you choose, but there it's just particularly clear that you're a pig. — tim wood

That is nonsense.

My "whole argument" is exactly as stated:

Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)

When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.

But...continue to flail and lose your cool. It is entertaining.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :yawn: — 180 Proof

Yawn if you want.

What I said is so...and most of it applies to you.

So yawn away...and refuse to grow up.

At that, you will be a success.

I thought the Bible was an account of historical events — 3017amen

Hint: if you go by Jefferson's edition then you'll be a little closer.

Accordingly, I wished the early church politicians would have included things like the lost gospel's information, Spinoza's, as well as the Gnostic wisdom! It's all about information and wisdom... !