Giving up is not satisfactory — SpaceDweller

So you are just a sore loser?

I think the answer is #2:
"Is he both able and willing"

So the question is "Then where does evil come from?" — SpaceDweller

Why is it so hard to give up on the arbitrarily invented traits of an imagined entity, even, or especially, when they have been shown to be impossible? It's not even in your book.

Merci beaucoup! — Agent Smith

De nada.

That's the wrong question. Ask what his IQ is. — Agent Smith

I didn't have to. Read his non answer, he tells it all.

It is my opinion that academic language is generated from thin air, while existing words are sufficient to explain the same concepts — whollyrolling

You have never studied anything nor have you learned a trade it seems. May I ask how old you are?

dumbly throw exclusivist terminology at people — whollyrolling

You think using philosophical terminology on a philosophy forum is "elitist"?

I don't understand quantum mechanics enough to explain it. Have a look at Prof. O'Dowd's video:

When does the wave function collapse? At time t1 or time t2? — Agent Smith

At t1 and that has been shown. Measurements in decoherence experiments like the delayed quantum eraser are done by computers (the effects are much too fast for human perception). The idea of conscious observation being necessary has been refuted in physics a long time ago but it still lives on in quantum woo. And if it were true, it would end up in solipsism.

Whoever said that was misinformed. It is the measurement that collapses the wave function, no consciousness necessary. And the measurement is any interaction with any kind of measurement device. That's why it is so difficult to build quantum computers. You have to maintain the superposition until you want to measure.

Logic, and rationality, are rendered null, further discussion is void.

But still, the posts continue. — Banno

What can we do?

Assume an unfaithful interlocutor and put them on ignore immediately?

That goes against Hanlon's Razor.

So we try to teach them logic 101, trace our arguments back to first principles before we are sure that we have a malicious interlocutor or are sure that they won't understand logic ever.

Then we put them on ignore.

The question of heavy stone demands God to degrade it's power: — SpaceDweller

Nope. It only questions the ability to degrade it's power. And, according to your attempt at logic, god doesn't have that ability. Thus it isn't omnipotent.

Am I omnipotent when I refuse to make a stone so heavy I can't lift it?
Am I omniscient when I refuse to let you in to my superior knowledge?

This obviously doesn't make God not omnipotent because God isn't only about omnipotence, all properties of a God must be taken into account for correct answer. — SpaceDweller

You know that adding properties does make your god even more impossible? The impossibility of an omnipotent, omni benevolent god has been show 2300 years ago:


“Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.
Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?
Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?”

― Epicurus

How you phrased that reminded me of Schrödinger's Cat.
Maybe god is in a superposition of being able to create the rock and lift it - until you make a measurement (= start to think about it). But unlike with quantum measurements, a conscious observer is necessary to collapse the wave function.

In other words, it's an illogical question, nonsense question which forces illogical answer. — SpaceDweller

Where exactly do you see the fault in the logic? I don't see it.

I accept reason but do you know logic can be wrong? — SpaceDweller

Logic isn't wrong, but you can make errors when trying to apply it. But dismissing an argument without explaining the fault in the logic is not a logical error, it is simply dismissing logic. And that is what you do when you dismiss the argument of the stone. An omnipotent entity can not logically exist. Some theists, like Aquinas have realized that. His god is not omnipotent but only maximally potent, thus avoiding an illogical god. Others are stomping their foot and insist on an illogical god but no-one with a working brain takes them serious.

Another travel example. When you travel to India and ask a Hindu if they believe in God, do you think they will refer to the Christian God? — Jackson

1. You didn't answer my question.

2. Do you? Or are they more likely to ask back "which one"? Referring to a specific god as "God" at least propagates confusion. I will use the proper names of the gods I'm talking about, Odin, Zeus or YHVH when I mean a specific god. I will use "god" and "it" when I refer to the diffuse concept of godhood.

"God" is a proper name. In a Christian culture everyone know it refers to God in that tradition. — Jackson

When you travel to another country, lets say Sweden, does your name change into "Hansson"?

Or am I missing something? I think the only hiccup would potentially be your agnostic "inner state" distinction, but wouldn't that just be a "soft agnostic atheist" (or something like that)? — Bob Ross

I'm not sure but you seem to confuse the distinction of "inner state" versus "position" and "hard" and "soft". They are orthogonal. The former tells whether you are making a statement about yourself or the world, the later is talking about how something is (actuality) versus how something could (not) be (potential).
The stronger position would of course be the "hard" variant (we don't know and we will never know). I can't defend that position. In fact, I see my position being falsified one day. When the last-but-one theist dies or de-converts there is only one (valid) definition of god left and soft Agnosticism would be wrong.

On top of this you are using lower case "god" - not upper case "God" - and this whole conversation is about the upper case version. So even if you could reformulate your original P1 & P2 into expressing your original conclusion (P3), this particular line of reasoning has no relevance to the actual topic under discussion. — EricH

"God" is not the name of any god, it is more like a title. Monotheists often forget that fact as their only god is identical to all titular gods they believe in. The gods of the Bible have names, El and YHVH (which got retconned into one when Judaism switched from henotheism to monotheism) specifically.

In theology there is an answer, all wisdom comes from God and people cannot fathom the wisdom higher than that of God. — SpaceDweller

Or, in other words, my god isn't limited by logic.
That, for me, is the ultimate conversation stopper. Because, if you don't accept reason, why should I reason with you?

"It is better ..." is a value judgement. There are no objective sets of values. So every statement "X is better than Y" should be read as "Given my values A, B, C, ... it follows that X is better than Y". Only then can a discussion arise if it really follows or if there is a flaw in the logic.
E.g.: Are squares better than triangles?
If symmetry is a value then, yes, squares are better because they have more symmetries.

And to your original problem:
An often cited value most people can agree upon is human well being. To have human well being, humans have to exist so existence is better than non-existence. But if the existence of more human beings doesn't increase the overall well being of all humans, more human beings is not better than fewer human beings.
An argument can be made that humans have overshot that threshold of optimal numbers a long time ago.

and therefore philosophers obviously don't know what they are talking about — Paulm12

Yep.

For instance, there is a difference between me saying "I believe in God" and me claiming "God Exists" — Paulm12

An important difference. "I believe in god(s)" is not a debatable assertion. I could reply "I don't" but that would be the end of the conversation.

Fine, tell me what I do not know. — Jackson

How many gods there are.
If it has the properties omnipotence, omniscience, omni benevolence, omnipresence.
If it is (perfectly) just, (perfectly) merciful, unchanging, jealous, ...

Most Theists wouldn't agree on those properties, not even most Christians and they won't be able to teach each other.

I know what they mean. — Jackson

I hate to break it to you but you don't. You may have an illusion of knowledge, just as they do but if you put your "knowledge" to the test, you'll find it lacking.

And that is my point. I do not think agnosticism is a legitimate position. They choose to be undecided. — Jackson

It would be so much easier if the Theists could decide what they mean when they say "god".

Short version: Theists don't agree what a god is.

Slightly longer version: Knowledge is transferable. If I know something, I can teach you, show you the evidence or the proof. I.e. if there were any objective knowledge about the nature of god, after several millennia Theists would have come to an agreement. They obviously haven't. (There are 41,000+ denominations in Christianity alone.) Thus, they obviously don't know what they are talking about.

To make the claim knowledge of god is not possible is a rather extreme metaphysical position. — Tom Storm


That's the definition I would use for agnosticism. — Jackson

It would be nice to be able to defend such a position but I can't (yet).
The only thing I can defend is that god is currently not known.

1. Everybody is right

2. Everybody is wrong.

Which would you select and why? — Agent Smith

#2 because in most cases there are multiple ways to be wrong and only one way to be right.

E.g.: 2 + 2 =

a) 2
b) 22
c) 5
d) 11

If all answers are right, you have a contradiction but not so if all are wrong.

Only truth/falsity are relevant to decisions. — Agent Smith

I agree.
And neither Theism nor Atheism are well formed propositions, thus can't have truth values.

Agnosticism per se is sterile - it doesn't help you in making critical decisions in life. — Agent Smith

And theism or atheism does?

Before I comment, let me ask for some clarification: is your Agnostic vs agnostic distinction about whom the claim is indexically referring to? As in, when you say "god is not known" is "soft Agnosticism", do you mean "[no person knows god exists"? Whereas "god is not known" in an "agnostic" position would really mean "[I do not know god exists, but I do not know if any other person does or does not know god exists"? — Bob Ross

Exactly. (And for the agnostic there is no way to claim that s/he and only s/he is unable to gain that knowledge without special pleading. So there are no "hard" agnostics.)

very interesting, what made you decide to change? — Bob Ross

I realized that Agnosticism is a stronger position (really, a position instead of just an inner state) than mere atheism. It also puts me in the same position as a Theist since I now have a burden of proof. It's at the same time levelling the playing field and giving me a stronger attack.
(It also makes me lonely. Neither atheists nor theists know how to handle my arguments so they just ignore me.)

Words have meanings. The word "god" in P1 is not defined - and thus we cannot draw any conclusions — EricH

The word "god" gets defined by P1. "Clapton is god" is short for "I define god as Clapton." And since you obviously know Clapton and you know he exists, you now know god and you know he exists.

No, because the conclusion does not follow since your use of "god" and "God" are different. — Jackson

No equivocation intended, nor do I see how you see one (except, as @javi2541997 noted, for grammatical reasons).
The argument has the basic form of A=B, ∃ B, ∴ ∃ A and is thus valid.

I don't think that your terminology quite accurately depicts all the positions available with respect to the topic at hand. — Bob Ross

I agree. And I said so in the OP. I was primarily focused on the distinction of inner state versus position.

"god is not known" is not equivocal to "god can't be known" — Bob Ross

Agree again. The former is often referred to as "soft" and the later as "hard" Agnosticism. But both are only ever possible options for the Agnostic, not the agnostic.

I would personally use a two-dimensional labeling system wherein one axis is knowledge (and lack thereof) and the other is belief (and lack thereof). In such a system, I would most accurately label myself an agnostic atheist. — Bob Ross

I also did before changing to / relabelling myself as Agnostic.
(And I also remain an atheist - by definition, not by choice.)

I do concede that it is highly controversial, — Bob Ross

I don't think so. It is a method I've seen often.

The possibility of god is an equally untenable belief, in my mind. — NOS4A2

I don't think about it as long as I don't get a definition.
But for the rest, yes, there is a possibility that god exists. I can even prove it to you. Regard this little syllogism:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.

Pretty undeniable, don't you think?

I am 57 so that would make me 115.
I hope you can survive till then. I am pretty sure, I'm f*****, — universeness

I'm 59 but ancestors from both parents sides have reached about 100 in a time when the average life expectancy was half of what it's now. So I expect to live to about 200.

If you say no to the first question, then you may be classified as a noncognitivist — javi2541997

"Theological noncognitivism is the non-theist position that religious language, particularly theological terminology such as "God", is not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like "God exists" are cognitively meaningless.[1] It may be considered synonymous with ignosticism (also called igtheism)," - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theological_noncognitivism

So, Ignosticism would be a more accurate word for the position than Agnosticism?

What do you mean by silicone? As currently used in electronic computing? — universeness

It is more a reference to the term "going into silicone" for uploading as used in cyberpunk novels. So, yes it means electronic computing but not necessarily traditional hardware.

Yeah but I think serious progress will take longer than a few decades. I base this just on the average human lifespan available now. We haven't achieved much beyond the old biblical claim for an average human lifespan as threescore and ten. — universeness

Ray Kurzweil has an eerily accurate track record of technological predictions. His prediction for the first general intelligence is 2028, the first super intelligence around 2050 and the singularity around 2080. And I'm inclined to believe him as I was surprised by Watson and alpha GO.

have you looked at any of the small forays into biological computing? — universeness

Briefly. The technology is much too young to anticipate if it will become useful in the process of "uploading".

Do you think this future tech could deal with the complexity issue you raised?

Again, too early to say. I'm not even sure if silicone is the way to go. Technology and biology are at a race for life extension and adaptation to, for example, long space flight. Maybe neither will win and general AIs will take over such tasks were you want to have a conscious and intelligent entity.
My guess is that we will see advances in all those fields over the next decades.

What's a lack of belief?

Either God exists xor God doesn't exist.

There are just two options and we know what theists chose. — Agent Smith

I think you are missing something here. In Aristotelian logic, only well formed propositions can have a truth value.
Neither "god exists" nor " god doesn't exist" are well formed propositions without a definition what that "god" thing is.

Regard the following syllogism:

P1: Clapton is god.
P2: Clapton exists. (And is real and there is evidence for that.)
C: God exists.

Did I just prove gods existence and end the discussion? I have a definition for god, I have evidence that a thing/being with the given definition is real. The conclusion follows from the premises.

So what to think of the conjecture about mind uploading? — Haglund

I'm with you in the general scepticism about the feasibility just on sheer complexity. And it doesn't end with the "electronics" of 10 billion neurons as the functions are also moderated by chemicals and the constant input of the senses.
But being not practical doesn't mean not possible. The practicability question may be solved by some shortcuts where clusters of neurons are replaced by much simpler but functionally equivalent emulations. If that ever happens it comes down to the age old question of monism versus dualism and the question if we can ever test it. I predict that the dualists will not accept a functioning uploaded mind as proof. They'll cite the Chinese Room and ask if that mind has "real consciousness™".