:lol:

Yep, stranger things have happened...go figure.

3017amen
2.3k
But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says.
— Frank Apisa

I'm not following that Frank. Take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You critiqued the syllogism by ranting. In other words, you claimed foul, then suggested that you're not even knowledgeable enough to understand that which you disapproved. Frank, I'm starting to get worried brother...sorry, but how old are you again? — 3017amen

I am 84, Amen.

You are not worried at all. You are attempting an insult...and doing it like a kid playing in a sandbox might do.

Your premises are false. (Look up false premises.) Actually, they are gratuitous...aiming for the result you want.

Your arguments are poor...which is the reason I often overlooked your attempts to agree with my posts. There are times I want to yell out..."Amen, be on someone else's side, not mine."

Anyway, you are correct in pointing out the errors in your opponents who are arguing from an atheistic position. Their arguments ARE filled with errors. But you fail to see the SAME ERRORS in what you argue.

That really was a piss poor attempt at a syllogism. But don't take my word for it...offer it to a logician at a university. They deserve a belly laugh, too.

It's okay Frank let it go ... let it go... breathe deep...

This thread is embarrassing, not just for @3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it.

thread is embarrassing, not just for 3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it. — Banno

Who's it embarrassing for, you?

Are you an atheist?

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

It's okay Frank let it go ... let it go... breathe deep... — 3017amen

Amateur stuff you are spewing there, Amen.

But...I guess you've gotta go with what you have.

You're right Frank. Remember you're good enough, smart enough, and doggone it, people like you!

Just joking my friend!!

The conversation is pathetic. As evidenced by the very post to which this is a reply. Neither of you has the sense ot back off in the face of the other's idiocy, resulting in mere acrimony.

Close the thread.

The conversation is pathetic. As evidenced by the very post to which this is a reply. Neither of you has the sense ot back off in the face of the other's idiocy, resulting in mere acrimony. — Banno

To be honest, I think it's because you're an atheist;. don't take it the wrong way, but an atheist that is much like what Einstein talked about. In other words, you're just trolling the thread (and offering no real import).

:up: ... dumb & dumber.

To be honest, I think it's because you're an atheist; — 3017amen

Perhaps; but consider, my being an atheist makes no difference to the shite you and Frank have swapped over the last few days. I consider it a brilliant exposition of how Christians such as your good self actually put into practice the injunction to turn the other cheek.

The accusation of trolling is just sad. Are you so incapable of self-reflection?

I would simply suggest putting your money where your mouth is and join the conversation. But perhaps you'll strawman the response... I hope I'm wrong.... We shall see.

dumb & dumber. — 180 Proof

Forgive me for the redundancy, since you guys seem to be on a witch hunt, I can't help but think the following quote actually describes you guys LOL


The fanatical atheists are like ...who are still feeling the weight of their chains which they have thrown off after hard struggle. They are creatures who—in their grudge against traditional religion as the "opium of the masses"—cannot hear the music of the spheres.
Albert Einstein

No pun intended, I wonder if Einstein was correct?

This thread is embarrassing, not just for 3017amen and for @Frank Apisa, but for the forums that spawned it. — Banno

You have never made a more clear and accurate statement. If the difference between a soft handed mod team and a hard handed mod team is jerkoffs like those 2 polluting the forum with garbage then I welcome the heavy hand. My self-righteous judgement would be complete except I share in the embarrassment, having interacted with both trolls.

xx

I would simply suggest putting your money where your mouth is and join the conversation. But perhaps you'll strawman the response... I hope I'm wrong.... We shall see. — 3017amen

Yeah, yeah, yeah! That's your bully boast oft repeated. But if anyone were to go back through this thread and some of your other posts on other threads, they would see that you run away from direct questions and challenges, sometimes throwing up repetitive smokescreens of word-salads, sometimes ignoring them outright. You have squandered your allotment of respect, and your ideas, if you have any, are lost in equivocation, confusion, arguments with words you don't know the meaning of.

Just several posts above this you adduced a valid syllogism - you apparently think it establishes a true conclusion. But. That. Is. Not. How. It. Works. Have you addressed that? Nope. Will you? I'd be surprised if you did. Will you attack instead? Yep!

Well, I did join the conversation for awhile. Indeed my previously rejected invitation for you to join a debate with me remains open. What remains obvious is that your reliance on the God of the gaps and your archaic notion of causation have been demonstrated repeatedly, and yet you are incapable of recognising your failure, or of responding in an interesting way.

Where could I read up on the older and new notions of causation?

Aristotle's four causes. Find out why they're called causes. Then any good dictionary for what it says about cause, and then maybe a legal dictionary. And then Kant on cause (and effect). That's a good start.

I had this thread in mind at the time:

Causality, Determination and such stuff.

There are a few links therein that might be interesting.

thanks to you both

@amen3017 @Punshhh
I address this not only to you but to any sincere theists who may be reading this.

I have very friends who are deeply religious, and I can see how it provides them with both a source of comfort as well as a way to structure their lives. One of then posted this on Facebook:

Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***

This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy.

Throughout history, some of the smartest people who have ever lived - people much smarter than anyone here - have attempted to understand/explain/deal with this “God” notion - and yet none of them agree with each other. And I’m talking strictly about the theists - people who think the sentence “God exists” is not merely a poetic notion but that it actually means something. These efforts have failed and will always fail for the simple reason that by the plain language definition of the words "God" and "exists", the sentence “God exists” breaks the Law of noncontradiction.

You don't have to take my word for it. There are now over 1K comments in this thread and a substantial majority of those posts consist of different people trying to explain this to you in as many different ways as they can think of. I realize that this concept is extraordinarily difficult for you to comprehend. For some reason, it seems like you are insecure about your faith and you feel the need to buttress it up with some sort of pseudo philosophical "logic". But not only are these efforts are doomed to failure - they miss the point. Your faith should be sufficient.

To use another metaphor: Bringing poetry to a philosophical discussion is like bringing a wet noodle to a knife fight.

Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life”

That is certainly something to consider.

A Psalm of Praise.
Make a joyful noise unto the Lord, all ye lands.
Serve the Lord with gladness: come before his presence with singing.
Know ye that the Lord he is God: it is he that hath made us, and not we ourselves: we are his people, and the sheep of his pasture.
Enter into his gates with thanksgiving, and into his courts with praise: be thankful unto him, and bless his name.
For the Lord is good, his mercy is everlasting: and his truth endureth to all generations.

Make a joyful noise! Dang. What a wonderful expression. This is beautiful literature. Those guys King James hired to translate the Bible certainly knew how to turn a phrase. But this is The Philosophy Forum you’re on - and these passages are irrelevant in a philosophical discussion.

I personally have no illusions that a metaphorical light bulb is going to light up over your heads upon reading this and that you're going to say "Oh, now I get it". My hope is that I have planted a seed that may grow in the fullness of time.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

*** I don’t have the time to find the original source of this statement, but I’m sure if you google it you can find who wrote this.

Im not a theist. Im not an atheist either. I just dont know.

But I never even once agreed with the notion that having a belief in God, faith, is entirely devoid of reason and logic. That just flies against all experience, which I grant is very little compared to a lot of you. I have had with belief personally and with others I have met.

Who in their right mind can honestly hope or believe in something without reasoning about it.
Yes God and religion can act as emotional support. But I could never ever convince myself to have faith in something without good reason. I cannot. I am also not convinced that arguments cannot rationally lead someone to sincerely believe God exists. I dont care about convincing others at all. I care about my own worldview and whether or not it is informed.

I simply feel that the brushing away of a serious philosophical view in such a manner is not right. Even if its in an academic minority.

Ive said many times that I barely know what I'm talking about and that its probably missing lots of philosophical vigour. So when I say I disagree with something its on a prima facie basis. I dont see how God and exist cannot be used in a sentence together. I dont see how it is a contradiction. Especially when, as evidenced in the ongoing discussions, we dont even have a proper definition of God around here.

DoppyTheElv
59
↪EricH
Im not a theist. Im not an atheist either. I just dont know.

But I never even once agreed with the notion that having a belief in God, faith, is entirely devoid of reason and logic. That just flies against all experience, which I grant is very little compared to a lot of you. I have had with belief personally and with others I have met.

Who in their right mind can honestly hope or believe in something without reasoning about it.
Yes God and religion can act as emotional support. But I could never ever convince myself to have faith in something without good reason. I cannot. I am also not convinced that arguments cannot rationally lead someone to sincerely believe God exists. I dont care about convincing others at all. I care about my own worldview and whether or not it is informed.

I simply feel that the brushing away of a serious philosophical view in such a manner is not right. Even if its in an academic minority.

Ive said many times that I barely know what I'm talking about and that its probably missing lots of philosophical vigour. So when I say I disagree with something its on a prima facie basis. I dont see how God and exist cannot be used in a sentence together. I dont see how it is a contradiction. Especially when, as evidenced in the ongoing discussions, we dont even have a proper definition of God around here. — DoppyTheElv

I've given a reasonable definition of a god...certainly one that could be used in discussions of this sort:

An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.) 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.

As for the "Atheist, theist, agnostic" angle, my take is an agnostic one:

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.

Once a man was asked, “What did you gain by regularly praying to God?” The man replied, “Nothing…but let me tell you what I lost: Anger, ego, greed, depression, insecurity, and fear of death.” Sometimes, the answer to our prayers is not gaining but losing; which ultimately is the gain. ***

This is beautifully written. But it is not philosophy. — EricH

Eric!

Well, a very important distinction. Thank you for bringing that to light. 'Religion' (man's way of worshiping a God), is just another 'temporal' means to an end as it were. Meaning, the concept of a God indeed broaches not only the many domain's of philosophy, but cognitive science/psychology as well (in principle, as it should). For that reason alone (the so-called existential reason) it's appropriate and germane. It is, in itself, a broad and far reaching subject matter.

Accordingly, we have seen thus far (not only here but throughout history), emotions (as Einstein even alluded to and he's not even a psychologist) running high and people (atheists in this case) overreacting (apparently from his work in cosmology). The point there is, not only is there the existential angst component that is associated with our existence here, but you have to ask yourself, if I'm an atheist, why am I or should I even be angry about debating EOG?

If an atheist doesn't believe that God/Jesus existed, then why does it invoke so much anger and hatred? Honestly, I don't get that. (I hate to call someone out because that's not my intent to embarrassed someone, but just so you know I'm not talking theory-only, Tim Wood dropped the F-bomb several times... .) So correct me if I'm wrong, but that's the cognitive science piece (sentience) that you allude to... .

Anyway, I certainly get all of the angst that comes along with the territory over the history of Religion itself; wars, killing, so on and so forth, but if we are to use objectivity exclusively in our approach to EOG, why should emotions play such an integral and important/obvious part... (note the paradox there from the foregoing concept of objectivity)?

What's more, since I'm equal opportunity, it's not just germane to atheism; it's agnosticism, theism, and other forms of religion ,etc.. etc.. In other words, it's human condition stuff. Existential stuff.

Thus, it seems, once again, we have a sort of inescapable paradox. And so, it also seems, that one relies on objectivity for their sense of logic, yet cannot escape their subjectivity. How does atheism square that circle?

That is a very important distinction you raise, which got me to thinking about that paradox, so thank you for that insight. Please poke holes in my argument and/or feel free to add thoughts of your own there. (I'll look at your other arguments shortly, but wanted to underscore that/your point.)

Now to the point - if you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, it is pointless for you to engage in these types of conversation. If you want to convince someone that your religion is worth believing in, you can simply say “Yes, my religion is illogical, all religions are illogical. But just take a look at how my religion can help you be a better person and deal with life” — EricH

Another great point. Here's the decisive moment. Isn't life itself outside the axioms of logic? (Is it in many ways, illogical? Hint: Dialectic reasoning) Maybe another (philosophical) way to ask that; what transcends objectivity?

Ah, sorry Frank I didnt notice this. Well I agree with your qualms with supernatural for the same reasons but I still dont see why, if we use that definition. Eric would say that its contradictory to say he exists.

DoppyTheElv
64
↪Frank Apisa
Ah, sorry Frank I didnt notice this. Well I agree with your qualms with supernatural for the same reasons but I still dont see why, if we use that definition. Eric would say that its contradictory to say he exists. — DoppyTheElv

Thanks, D.

I use "gods" so the term "he exists" is not meaningful to my remarks.

I merely was responding to your comment about definitions of God (a god).

EricH is doing what I am doing...planting seeds that we hope one day will bear fruit.

I am certain that I do not know if gods exist (which is to say I do not know if the thing we humans call "the universe" was created or caused to be created by an entity or entities.)

I am certain that I do not know if no gods exist (which is to say I do not know if what we humans call "the universe" was either not created...or was created by means that does include "cause" by an entity or entities.

And I am certain that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess on the matter.

I am certain that I do not know [ ... ] — Frank Apisa

All well and good, Frank, but your mantra in no way is incompatible with, or even invalidates, the claim "I am certain that I do know [ ... ]" the very same things you insist you don't know - which amounts to a distinction without a cognitive difference. And, despite whatever you call yourself (i.e. whatever self-"descriptors" you use), you've long since confessed that your modus vivendi is indistingishable from that of any garden-variety "atheist", so you're just another godless nonbeliever, in practice, like (most) forum members.

*Happy Apostasy Day*, Old Man. :halo:

180 Proof
1.6k
I am certain that I do not know [ ... ]
— Frank Apisa
All well and good, Frank, but your mantra in no way is incompatible with, or even invalidates, the claim "I am certain that I do know [ ... ]" the very same things you insist you don't know - which amounts to a distinction without a cognitive difference. And, despite whatever you call yourself (i.e. whatever self-"descriptors" you use), you've long since confessed that your modus vivendi is indistingishuable from that of any garden-variety "atheist", so you're just another godless nonbeliever, in practice, like (most) forum members.


*Happy Apostasy Day*, Old Man. :halo: — 180 Proof

I most assuredly am not an atheist...nor would I ever be one. I'd sooner adopt theist...a more ethical descriptor. But I am neither. My take on the question of whether there are any gods or not 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 seems to bother you.

I will discuss this for as long as you want, but from this point on I will only deal with you on this question in private messages. No reason for us to foul up this thread with our differences.