It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen
So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job". — EricH
One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. — EricH
It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen
You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.
If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular — EricH
Atheists do not like having agnostics around to debate. They inevitably lose. — Frank Apisa
180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof
I'll add into the possibility that we will never know if Jesus wrote anything down himself. — 3017amen
For example, the language of mathematics that describe (not explain) the cosmos is indeed a truth, yet abstract!!! — 3017amen
Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.
I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread. — Frank Apisa
Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism. — Frank Apisa
I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit. — Frank Apisa
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
Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical. — Frank Apisa
In Christianity Jesus existed. — 3017amen
So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence? — 3017amen
Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... . — 3017amen
For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.
With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.
In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?
The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply! — 3017amen
Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.
Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence. — 3017amen
There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus. — substantivalism
They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god. — substantivalism
Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about. — substantivalism
Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian? — substantivalism
You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such. — substantivalism
You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend. — substantivalism
A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person. — substantivalism
You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it. — substantivalism
Given all your philosophical questions or issues why hold onto christianity at all and not go towards another religion or not possess any religion at all to be central to your philosophy? Why dogmatically assume christianity to be central around which your philosophy is built? — substantivalism
You do not know what you're talking about. Btw, if you go back through this thread and others, you will find many questions to you that you have ignored. In as much as asking and answering questions is a part of civil discourse as practiced by adults, and you don't, then I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy. — 3017amen
I noted this above. So much wrong in so few words. You do not even realize the level of your own ignorance - which failure is called stupidity. So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen
I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy. — 3017amenYou do not know what you're talking about — tim wood
you go back through this thread and others, you will find many questions to you that you have ignored. I — tim wood
then I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too. — tim wood
So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood
Omnipotence. . . I attempted to post a thread discussing how we could define it not that it was impossible therefore god was (not to mention that would only make omnipotent defined gods impossible not every god. . . be more careful with your language). — substantivalism
So would you claim then that something a person doesn't know about they actively in a position of ignorance towards it? Or that if they don't even understand what an entity is defined as or that it's supposed to mean anything to anyone that you could be actively epistemologically indifferent to the existence of something that may not be an entity at all? I was trying to emphasize that atheist, theist, and agnostic are internal to the debate while those positions discussing tenative perspective on the debate, ignostics perhaps, are dealing with whether we should even debate or have reason to do so. — substantivalism
If I recall I never insulted you and you continue to do so. . . good philosophical sportsmanship. — substantivalism
If you wanted to make it more general then you need to add to it "I do not know if gods exist or not or if the concept possesses any coherent meaning to do so". — substantivalism
I'm not talking about every meaning of god, as I've pointed put, you cannot be agnostic to some while you have to be atheistic/theistic to others par their definitions. — substantivalism
3017amen
2.2k
↪Frank Apisa
Gosh Frank, they're getting unhinged. I kind of feel sorry for some of them, but hey, it's of their own doing. I think it's called volitional existence. I suppose using Christian philosophy (once again), it's really 'nothing new under the sun' as it were (Ecclesiastes/Existentialism)!!!
Have a good weekend brother! — 3017amen
There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous? — 3017amen
God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin: — 3017amen
Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... . — 3017amen
You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry. — 3017amen
And so we may have agreement to where it is tin fact rue that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind? — 3017amen
Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience? — 3017amen
Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional? — 3017amen
As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No? — 3017amen
In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there. — 3017amen
Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL — 3017amen
I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.
Interesting.
Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language! — Frank Apisa
I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times. — Frank Apisa
As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that. — Frank Apisa
I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.
Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum. — Frank Apisa
No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that. — Frank Apisa
No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.
You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.
Here they are:
1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?
2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)
What would your answers be? — 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.