I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. — Hippyhead
That is pretty much the opposite of my position — EricH
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 — EricH
Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs? — EricH
Those are indications of words on a page in a book. Belief is irrelevant to the topic, I don't understand what you think belief has to do with it. — whollyrolling
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 — EricH
And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. — 3017amen
I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love. — Hippyhead
Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY? — Frank Apisa
humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way? — Frank Apisa
EricH
185
↪Frank Apisa
Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?
— Frank Apisa
Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it - — EricH
That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.
Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component. — EricH
Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does. — EricH
What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”
I mean 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.”
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature. — Frank Apisa
Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." — Frank Apisa
EricH
186
↪Frank Apisa
Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:
What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”
I mean 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.”
I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
— Frank Apisa
And here is your latest definition.
Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or e — EricH
You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.
I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.
"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.
And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.
"I do not know" makes lots of sense.
"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.
At least, as I see it. — Frank Apisa
The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe. — Hippyhead
One should first understand what history is, to understand hat history books are, and then one may approach their contents. In any case, the Christian Bible is no history book, nor does any but the fond think it is. — tim wood
Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. — substantivalism
Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".
Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense. — substantivalism
Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?Here is my agnosticism [ ... ] — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.6k
Here is my agnosticism [ ... ]
— Frank Apisa
Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism? — 180 Proof
Why do you indulge him — substantivalism
I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect. — Hippyhead
Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.
Here is my agnosticism:
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.
I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion. — Frank Apisa
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. — EricH
Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.
Here is my agnosticism:
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.
I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.
— Frank Apisa
Most philosophers? — substantivalism
But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't? — substantivalism
Yes, most philosophers.
Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic. — Frank Apisa
What are you talking about???
Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is? — Frank Apisa
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.