Nasir Shuja
88
↪Frank Apisa


Yes, you are misunderstanding my argument. My argument is that words have meanings *only within* contexts, and because there is meaning in those contexts only, no matter if we don't realize we are talking about the same thing or if we think we are but aren't, there is still meaning (an abstract or sensory object), which could be known by others if the circumstance allows. I do not mean it as the standard textbook version of meaning. In philosophical discussions, or a court of law, we encounter this at its peak, which is why communication can be tricky. Again, i am not arguing for an objective, referential view of language, quite the opposite. — Nasir Shuja

Of what use would language be if not as objective as possible. If I am speaking of a rainbow and you are interpreting that to be a fox...we are NOT communicating.

My point is, though, that many words (especially descriptor words) are almost meaningless because they mean so many different things to different people...and that is regardless of context.

Use my earlier example...the word "atheist."

Try using it as a descritor...describe the context...and let's see if the word is unambiguous.

I have a hard time conceiving of ANY descriptor use or context that resolves unambiguously.

This is significant because almost all descriptor type words can be explained by avoiding the descriptor (when communicating) and using a description instead.

Devans99
1.8k
↪Frank Apisa
Causality absolutely requires a first cause.

Take an example; the break off shot in pool is the first cause of the pack scattering around the table. Take away the break off (=first cause) and nothing happens.

All instances of causality are inverted pyramids with the first cause being the pointy end and now being the ever growing base of the pyramid.

To deny the above is to deny common sense and much of science. — Devans99

Yet...you posit an uncaused cause to explain it.

The position is untenable...although I doubt you will abandon it. You need it because your intentions all along have been to "prove" there is a GOD.

There is denial of common sense here. But you are the one denying it.

Reply
Options
Nasir Shuja
86
↪Frank Apisa

Before I reply could you expand on this a little bit? — Nasir Shuja

Sure thing.

Your first words were "In definitions, words have meanings."

I am merely pointing out that often they do not.

I used the example of "atheist" because it comes up often here in this forum.

arguments over those differences often takes over for fundamental topics in which it comes to be used. — Nasir

In this case...THIS IS THE TOPIC.

Clearly atheist could mean a variety of things, and often times the communication is less than ideal. Much seems to be lost in translation/naming, but if by Mona Lisa I mean this picture and you do too, how can we really argue with that when we both point at it?

I am sure there are a myriad of things on which we could agree. But in philosophical discussiong...often words have meanings that are not so cut-and-dry.

That is my point.

I am refuting the first argument you made. (Unless I am misunderstanding your first argument.)

I think that the argument from causality for a first cause is so obvious that it will have occurred to many people across the ages. Aristotle mentions it, St Thomas Aquinas goes to town on it; surely it will have occurred in other cultures too? A first cause for causality naturally leads to some sort of creator God, which leads eventually to monotheism.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

The idea of monotheism arose independently in different human cultures. It is quite a natural idea to look at creation and wonder who made it. I think that aliens will also believe in a monotheistic deity of some sort; it makes sense from metaphysical arguments like the argument from causation etc... These arguments are just logical and transcend any particular culture. — Devans99

The need for a "first cause" is an absurdity...used mostly by people devoted to showing that a "god" has to exist.

The "first cause" can be everything...just as easily as it can be a creator being.

(The creator being necessitated only by your insistence that "what is" is a creation.)

Christianity is based on the supposed teachings of the god of Abraham. The god of Abraham IS NOT a monotheistic god...not in any way.

So...Christianity is not a monotheistic religion.

I suspect the process of "truly becoming aware" that differentiated us from the lesser animals (they seem "aware" on a different level) almost guaranteed that we would eventually try to answer questions about what are we; what is this; how did it come to be...and other complex questions of that sort.

The notion that "a start by a prior existing something" certainly would be considered...and my guess would easily become the prevailing theory, because of the harshness of animal existence.

Gods or a god may be the answer to Ultimate Questions...but if "gods or a god" had never been considered, we'd still just a blob of cells reacting as do the lesser animals.

So, the notion that there are gods seems inevitable...and whether correct or incorrect, would be almost inevitable to any creatures evolving the way we humans have.

To suppose that objections to metaphysical arguments for the existence of God are otiose...makes no sense. They are inevitable.

Difficult for me to understand what you were attempting to say about words...or how you intended what you were attempting to say impacts on philosophy, but I am pretty sure I disagree.

IF you were saying that words have specific meanings (even if within contexts) in philosophic discussions...you are dead wrong.

Take the word "atheist" as a descriptor. Used in the context of "I am an atheist"...it can mean a diverse variety of things...and arguments over those differences often takes over for fundamental topics in which it comes to be used.

I acknowledge I may have gotten you wrong.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

Any assertion made that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...

...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS. — Frank Apisa


Must. Repeat. The. Mantra. — Terrapin Station

It is so

leo
265
↪Frank Apisa


At the end of the day you do what you want. I just find it peculiar that you react this way with believing and not with any other concept. If you say that you bring a glass of water to your mouth and swallow the water, I would say well you drink water, but if you insist that "NO I DO NOT DO DRINKING" then I wonder, why this reaction?

Don't you see that you accepting as true that English is not my first language, without having the evidence to establish it as true, is you believing, precisely because this is how you defined believing?

If you say that there are things you believe, but you never say "I believe", I can understand. But if you insist that you do not believe anything, while we have proof of the contrary, then I don't understand your point of view.


As to the idea that beliefs are guesses in disguise, to believe is to assert something as true (while not having sufficient evidence), while to guess is to assert something without claiming it is true. I agree with your idea that beliefs are sometimes based on guesses, and I agree that it is wrong to claim that something believed is objective truth, but I don't agree that a belief is a guess in disguise, because believing something is seeing it as subjective truth, which is definitely not the same as guessing. — leo

One...I do not do "believing."

Two...any "belief" about whether gods exist or not...is nothing but a blind guess.

Three...I do not do "believing."

fresco
20
↪Frank Apisa


Okay. I take it you quoted Jabberwocky in the misguided view that since Lewis Carroll concerned himself with 'nonsense' then his significant observation about 'power' regarding meaning should be ignored. (The fact that Carroll was perhaps linguistically ahead of his time in recognizing the significance of syntax for semantics, of course deflates the simplistic label 'nonsense poem' but such analysis would do your mission no favours, woud it ? :wink: ) — fresco

Yeah...all that, plus one of my favorite places on this planet is the statue of Alice in Central Park. I visit Alice each time I go to the park...and all around her are Jabberwocky quotes.

ALICE (one of the truly great statues of this world):



The plaque...(notice the misspelling of borogoves):

leo
264

When I make a guess...I call that guess a guess. I see no reason to pretend it is something else; no reason to disguise the fact that I am making a guess. — Frank Apisa


But we agreed that a guess and a belief are not the same thing, and you gave different definitions for them. So surely, when you do something that fits the definition of guessing you are making a guess, and when you do something that fits the definition of believing you are doing believing right? I honestly do not get what you don't understand about that.

Your definition for "believing": "accepting something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".

I gave you an example of something you do that fits exactly your own definition of "believing".

You have the right to not use the word "believe" or "believing" to describe something you do that fits your definition for "believing". But do you at least agree that you do things that fit your own definition of "believing"?

First, allow me to repeat that I do not do "believing"...which, in many contexts, is using the word "believe" to disguise a guess, supposition, estimate...and that stuff. — Frank Apisa


In what context do people use the word "believe" to disguise a guess? When people say they believe in a god, by your definition they accept as true that there is a god, without having the evidence to establish it as true, and we agreed that this is different from making a guess, so they are not disguising a guess. — leo

Leo...we have discussed this to death...and you apparently have decided you will not accept my take on things.

Fine.

Go do your "believing."

I will not do any "believing"...although I will continue occasionally to make guesses (which I will call guesses); occasionally make suppositions (which I will call suppositions); occasionally make estimates (which I will call estimating)...and the world will continue to rotate on its axis and continue to travel around the sun.

Janus
7.3k

One uses the word "believe"...the other does not. — Frank Apisa


A merely terminological difference, so we can leave that aside, since it wasn't about that I was asking.

So...if I think that I know X and say, "I think that I know X"...I have described the situation to the max.

If instead I say, "I believe I know X"...I have muddied the waters a bit...FOR NO GOOD REASON. — Frank Apisa


I can understand what you are saying (since it written in a language I am fluent in) but I cannot understand why you are saying it. Can you provide some explanation of your reasoning? — Janus

I've done that several times here, Janus.

For whatever reason, nobody here wants to accept (buy into, if you prefer) it.

The use of the word "believe" to disguise blind guesses about whether or not gods exist...and about the nature of any gods that are blindly guessed to exist...

...is at the heart of much of the trouble endured on planet Earth.

I simply have chosen to leave that behind in my personal life.

That seems to upset some people.

Nothing I can do about that.

If you have some specific questions...ask them and I may respond further.

Janus
7.3k

I would not use "a word" to describe the things I think I know, PC. I would say, "I think I know...x." — Frank Apisa


Do you think there is any significant conceptual, as opposed to a merely terminological, difference between "i think that I know x" and "I believe that I know x" — Janus

A significant difference, Janus.

One uses the word "believe"...the other does not.

So...if I think that I know X and say, "I think that I know X"...I have described the situation to the max.

If instead I say, "I believe I know X"...I have muddied the waters a bit...FOR NO GOOD REASON.

Saying "I think I know X" works just fine.

Aside: This is not something I actually would do. If I were saying, "I think I know X"...what I am actually saying is that I am unsure...which means I do not KNOW it.

If I actually KNEW X...I would say, "I know X."

Terrapin Station
9.1k

"Blind guess"implies it is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning. — Frank Apisa


"Blind guess" implies it's not based on any evidence or reasoning period.

"Ambiguous"/"unambiguous" is relative/subjective. It depends on the meaning, if any, an individual assigns any evidence or reasoning. — Terrapin Station

Bullshit.

Any assertion made that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...

...IS NOTHING BUT A BLIND GUESS.

And when people say, "I 'believe' (in) God" or "I 'believe' there are no gods"...

...all the are doing is sharing a blind guess...and disguising the fact that it is a blind guess by calling it a "belief."

To make things even funnier...they argue that their blind guesses are due respect...

...because they call them "beliefs."

See through this nonsense, Terrapin. You will be the better for it.

I'll even do part of your work for ya:

P1:

P2:

C: Therefore at least one god exists.

All you have to do is fill in the P1 and P2.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

It is blind guess...no matter what. — Frank Apisa


No, it isn't. "Blind guess" implies that it's not based on any evidence or reasoning. — Terrapin Station

"Blind guess"implies it is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning.

Any blind guess about whether there are any gods or not...

...is not based on any unambiguous evidence or reasoning.

It is based on a blind guess.

Give me any unambiguous piece of evidence that a god exists (or that none exist)...and the "reasoning that supports it.

leo
263

I do not do "believing."

I make guesses...and call them guesses.

I estimate things...and call them estimates.

I suppose things...and call them suppositions. — Frank Apisa


You do believing...and you don't call it believing. — leo

I do not do "believing."

Earlier you gave a definition for "guess": "an assertion (of sorts) that lacks sufficient information to be reasonably certain".

You say that you make guesses, because you make assertions that lack sufficient information to be reasonably certain, which fits your definition of "guess".

Then you gave a definition for "belief": "an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".

You accepted something as true (English not being my first language), without having the evidence to actually establish it as true, which fits your definition of "belief". And yet you will not say that you do believing.

There is zero conceptual difference between the two cases, do you not see that? If something you do is described exactly by the word "believing", as defined by you, why won't you use that word?

First, allow me to repeat that I do not do "believing"...which, in many contexts, is using the word "believe" to disguise a guess, supposition, estimate...and that stuff.

When I make a guess...I call that guess a guess. I see no reason to pretend it is something else; no reason to disguise the fact that I am making a guess.

Some people do. Apparently you are one of them...and for some reason, you want to insist that everyone must do it also.

Well...I do not.

Why do you do that for that word and not any other? — Leo

What difference does that make?

I do it for that word.

Most of the time, as I have mentioned many times...it does not matter. I can easily say, "I believe the GIANTS will win their first game" or "I believe Donald Trump is the most disgusting human being ever to hold high office in the United States" or "I believe I will take a dump before going onto the golf course."

But I don't...because I would prefer to be consistent on this issue.

Just as easy for me to say, "I think the GIANTS will win their first game"; "I consider Donald Trump to be the most disgusting human being ever to hold high office in the United States"; or "I'm gonna take a dump before leaving for the course."

Why does any of that bother you so?

Terrapin Station
9.1k

In a philosophy forum...one expects greater care with wording. — Frank Apisa


It's not a lack of care with wording. You can't parse speech like a robot. You won't understand a huge percentage of what people say if you do that. — Terrapin Station

Some people say, "I do not believe any gods exist"...and actually mean, "I believe there are no gods."

That is sloppiness in a discussion in a philosophy forum.

No they are not. They are making a totally blind guess... — Frank Apisa


If they say, "Flowers are evidence that God exists. Flowers couldn't be as they are without there being a God," then that's not a blind guess. It's based on evidence. If an assertion is based on evidence, it's not a blind guess.

It is blind guess...no matter what.

In any case, IF there is a creator GOD...then flowers are evidence that there is a GOD. Shit also would be evidence of that GOD. So would everything else that exists.

IF a GOD exists.

Easy enough concept. You should be able to get it.

leo
262
↪Frank Apisa


By your own definition of belief, you are believing. If I see you drink water and you say that you DO NOT DO DRINKING, I will let you say that if that's so important to you, but I will still say that you drink water. — leo

Try to get over it, Leo.

I do not do "believing."

I make guesses...and call them guesses.

I estimate things...and call them estimates.

I suppose things...and call them suppositions.

Some people do all those things...and then substitute the word "believe" for guess, estimate, and suppose.

You seem so bothered by the fact that I do not do that.

leo
261

I accept without the slightest doubt one thing said right here in this exchange...with no real evidence other than your word, namely that English is not your first language. You are very, very proficient...and I could doubt that, but I am totally willing to accept it as true without any investigation.

I would not say, "I believe you"...I would say, "I accept that as true." — Frank Apisa


But you said previously: "To me, a "belief" is a word used to denote an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true".

And by your own admission you do not have the evidence to actually establish as true that English is not my first language.

So in accepting as true that English is not my first language, you are believing, by your own definition of "belief". You are not saying it of course, but you are doing it. — leo

No...I am specifically NOT doing that.

I am accepting it.

Right along I have said that I do all the other things people do who say about those things, "I believe...!

But I do not use the "believe" denotation.

I accept; I guess; I estimate; I suppose; I presume; I assume; I assess...just like everyone else. I have never said anything about any of that...EXCEPT THAT I DO THOSE THINGS.

And when I do, I say, "I guess..."; "I suppose..."; "I presume..."...and all the rest.

But the one goddam thing I do NOT DO...

...is to say, "I believe."

So I do not do "believing." I do guessing; I do supposing: I do presuming...BUT I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

Not sure how to get that through the concrete screening your brain input...but I am relentless, so I will keep making attempts.

— Terrapin Station

That was terrible.

In fact, it was worse than terrible.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

Your wording is careless. Are you actually saying you don't think people often make blind guesses...or are you actually saying you think people do not often make blind guesses. — Frank Apisa


It's not careless if you're used to conventional conversational English. The two are saying the same thing. — Terrapin Station

In a philosophy forum...one expects greater care with wording.

If you are not up to it...no problem.

Every person on this planet who has ever made a statement like, "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...

...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS. — Frank Apisa


No, they're not. Almost everyone is basing that on some sort of evidence, some sort of intuition or feeling that isn't identical to the claim, some sort of reasoning, etc. Almost no one actually makes a blind guess about it. — Terrapin

No they are not. They are making a totally blind guess...pretending they are not making a totally blind guess...and furthering the pretense by using "believe" rather than "blindly guess" to describe what they are doing.

Whether you think the evidence, the reasoning, etc. is quality is another issue. That's irrelevant to whether it's a blind guess.

It is a blind guess.

But the pretense seems important to you...so stick with it.

fresco
11
Once more, had you read the epistemological literature, you would be aware that all words, including 'guess' take their meaning from the social context in which they occur. They are no longer considered representational of a 'state of reality' independent of that context. That position renders much verbiage called 'debate' as mere jockeying for social dominance, or even a form of social dancing.

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less." "The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things." "The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all." — fresco

Okay...thank you for that, Fresco.

’Twas brillig, and the slithy toves
Did gyre and gimble in the wabe;
All mimsy were the borogoves,
And the mome raths outgrabe.

leo
260
↪Frank Apisa


I actually was being sincere, and in return you were fully condescending towards me. — leo

It is my opinion that you were not sincere when you said you were not being condescending toward me.

I am returning the condescension.

English is not my first language by the way, hence the occasional grammatical errors.

I understand and I will not call other errors to your attention. The reason I called that one to your attention was because you were calling what you consider a mistake to mine. It was not a mistake.

But since you suspect that I am lying and/or that I don't know my own intentions, there is no point in talking to you about myself, so I'll stop doing it.

Okay...we move on. I hope no condescension comes from either of us from this point on.

Finally you said it: guess and belief are not the same thing.

Now I'm going to point out the thorn that bothers you. — Leo

No you are not. And to suppose you can do that...is fucking condescension.

Let's get away from that!

To me, a "belief" is a word used to denote an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true. It also is a word that people use to disguise some guesses, mostly, it seems to me, because they do not want to acknowledge the guesses to be guesses. — Frank Apisa


You want to know why people who accept something as true don't say it is a guess? Because when they accept it as true, it becomes the truth to them. — Leo

I do not care why they don't call it a guess. I suspect they don't for a variety of reasons.

But the fact that it "becomes the truth to them"...DOES NOT MAKE IT THE TRUTH.

It bothers you that people who believe in something don't acknowledge that their belief is a guess, but in order to acknowledge that it is a guess they would have to stop believing. So fundamentally it bothers you that people believe in something. — Leo

It doesn't bother me.

If they want to kid themselves and suppose their "beliefs" on these issues are more than just blind guesses...that is fine with me. Their lives might be upset without that pretense...and no way I would want to talk them out of something that helps them live a more comfortable life.

I would never do that.

So what in hell are you talking about?

You say you do not believe in anything, but I presume there are things you accept as true because you consider you have the evidence to establish them as true? Do you have some examples of that?

I imagine there are...but I am a rather thorough agnostic and I seldom make a big deal of taking anything (of the nature we are talking about) as true the way some people do "there is a God" or "there are no gods."

I accept without the slightest doubt one thing said right here in this exchange...with no real evidence other than your word, namely that English is not your first language. You are very, very proficient...and I could doubt that, but I am totally willing to accept it as true without any investigation.

I would not say, "I believe you"...I would say, "I accept that as true."

I simply do not ever use the word "believe" as a substitute for "accept" or "suppose" or "estimate" or "guess."

I just do not do it.

Which is why I truthfully say, I do not do "believing."

Terrapin Station
9.1k

But often we are not. — Pattern-chaser


I don't think that people often make blind guesses about things. And when they do, they usually announce it; often they're rather apologetic about it.

That doesn't imply that someone else is going to think that the empirical stuff, the rationality behind an assertion that's not a blind guess is "quality," but that's a very different issue. — Terrapin Station

Your wording is careless. Are you actually saying you don't think people often make blind guesses...or are you actually saying you think people do not often make blind guesses.

Those are two different things...and in a philosophy forum, that should be considered.

Anyway, I will assume sloppy wording...and further assume you meant that you think people do not often make blind guesses.

Wow!

Every person on this planet who has ever made a statement like, "There is a GOD" or "There are no gods"...

...IS MAKING A BLIND GUESS.

Damn near everyone (excepting agnostics) make blind guesses about that question.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

Because a guess that is not "meaningful" is pretty much a blind one. — Frank Apisa


Unless you're using "meaning" in some very odd manner, why couldn't a blind guess be meaningful to someone? — Terrapin Station

Sounds as though it could be meaningful to you.

But I am talking about someone seriously considering questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

To someone considering questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence..."beliefs" based on what essentially are coin tosses...ARE NOT MEANINGFUL.

My answer would be: I do not know. It certainly is possible. — Frank Apisa


If the very notion of nonphysicality is incoherent, you can know.

I'll stick with the truth.

I do not know if what humans call "non-physical beings" exist.

My guess is you don't either.

But apparently you are going to pretend there is a way for you to know...by pretending we humans can declare the very idea to be "incoherent."

Hey, no problemo.

You are allowed to do that.

fresco
10
To Leo
Frank is here on a self validatory mission regarding his agnosticism. This involves ignoring all usual epistemological objections because his personal sacrosanct word magic of 'guessing' has replaced the word magic of 'holy writ' he rejected. He of course dismisses this contextual observation as 'crap', but
but that's is actually all there is to it. — fresco

Yeah, a bit of that.

Also to help people too involved with themselves...

...to kick the habit.

It is okay to make blind guesses...and pretend they are something more by calling them "beliefs."

I actually get a kick out of watching people do it.

leo
259

No, I am not. And that sentence was particularly condescending. — Frank Apisa


Yes you are mistaking my compassion for condescension, and no saying that I have compassion for you is not objectively condescending, that's your own subjective interpretation. — leo

You are mistaking your condescension for compassion. I suspect (only suspect) that is because along with being condescending...you are also being an asshole.

Well...you certainly are acting as though you are. — Frank Apisa


I would be bothered if I was fighting with you and I wanted you to admit defeat, which seems to be your interpretation of what's going on here. But I'm not fighting, I'm just trying to help you see something you fail to see. — Leo

Baloney.

Anyway...allow me to help you see a mistake of yours. Your paragraph was written in the conditional subjective mood...so it should have started, "I would be bothered if I WERE fighting..."

No need for any thanks.

(Just shakes his head and sighs at this nonsense.) — Frank Apisa


Now this is much more objectively condescending. It is not nonsense to state that you misinterpret and misrepresent my intentions, I should know because I know what my intentions are. — Leo

It absolutely was condescending...and meant to be so. I was echoing your condescension. I suspect (just suspect) that either you are lying...or that you do NOT know your intentions.

I think a guess is a guess. At times some people hide the fact that they are making a guess by calling their guess a belief...as in "I believe (in) God" or "I believe there are no gods." — Frank Apisa

A guess that is called a "belief" is being disguised. — Frank Apisa


You didn't answer my question. — Leo

I responded to your question. If you do not consider it an answer...so be it. You can infer my answer from my response.

Do you consider that a guess and a belief are the same thing? Yes or no? — Leo

Okay...yes or no.

If you say that calling a guess a belief is disguising a guess, that means you consider that a belief is not a guess right? — Leo

I made a response to your question that was clear...and gave you more than enough information to ease this bother and trauma you are enduring because of my position.

Use it. Or consult your physician for a drug that will help you cope.

And then what is the difference between a guess and a belief? — Leo

I am sure you meant..."what is the difference" as I see it.

To me, a "guess" is a word used to denote an assertion (of sorts) that lacks sufficient information to be reasonably certain. Guesses seem to range from "informed guesses" to "totally blind guesses."

To me, a "belief" is a word used to denote an acceptance of something as true...without having the evidence to actually establish it as true. It also is a word that people use to disguise some guesses, mostly, it seems to me, because they do not want to acknowledge the guesses to be guesses.

(Neither of these are all encompassing definitions...but they give a good taste of my feelings about both.

What is a belief to you?

We've been through this.

leo
257
↪Frank Apisa


You're mistaking compassion for condescension. — leo

No, I am not. And that sentence was particularly condescending.

I am not bothered, — Leo

Well...you certainly are acting as though you are.

I am not in a competition to win and get pleasure out of it as if you were my enemy, I am just trying to make you see your mistake. — Leo

I am not mistaken on this point. I do not do "believing."

At best I am a bit annoyed that you keep misinterpreting and misrepresenting my intentions and thoughts, and I wish you would spend a little more effort in attempting to understand what I try to convey to you. — Leo

(Just shakes his head and sighs at this nonsense.)

Do you consider that a belief is the same thing as a guess? — Leo

I think a guess is a guess. At times some people hide the fact that they are making a guess by calling their guess a belief...as in "I believe (in) God" or "I believe there are no gods."

I do not do that. If I make a guess...I call my guess a guess.

If so, why do you insist on not using the word belief, why is it less clear to use the word belief? — Leo

See above.

If not, what is to you the difference between the two? — Leo

A guess that is called a "belief" is being disguised.

I prefer not to do that.

I do wonder why that bothers you so.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

There is absolutely nothing upon which you can make a meaningful guess regarding the existence or non-existence of gods. — Frank Apisa


I don't know why you're changing to a focus on "meaningful." — Terrapin Station

Because a guess that is not "meaningful" is pretty much a blind one. I certainly can make a guess...I could, for instance, flip a coin to determine that guess. But it would not be meaningful, Terrapin.

I remind you of my personal agnosticism...which I have posted several times:

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 gods are 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.

So the "meaningful" is not new...it has been part of my position for the last thirty years.

At any rate, one example of something you can base an assertion on is whether nonphysical existents are coherent.

The question I would ask myself is: Can what we humans call "non-physical beings" exist?

My answer would be: I do not know. It certainly is possible. (I can't see any reason to assert it being necessary or to assert it being impossible.) And I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...so I probably wouldn't.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

There is nothing upon which anyone can do other than to blindly guess if there are any gods or not. — Frank Apisa


That's not correct though. We can base our assertions on evidence, rationality, etc. — Terrapin Station

There is absolutely nothing upon which you can make a meaningful guess regarding the existence or non-existence of gods.

The guess...and it will be a guess...is completely blind. You can just as logically, reasonably toss a coin...and use HEADS for "there is at least one god" and TAILS for "there are no gods."

Which way are you guessing, by the way? Perhaps we can approach our discussion better if that information is shared.

As for me...I am not making a guess...although if you want me to, I will gladly flip a coin.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

If, however, you are asking if I am of the opinion that there are NO facts which substantively and unambiguously point to "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods".... — Frank Apisa


That's not what I'm asking. You don't need "substantively and umabiguously" for something not to be just a blind guess. For it to not just be a blind guess it simply has to be based on some support--some evidence, some logical argument, etc. — Terrapin Station

There is nothing upon which anyone can do other than to blindly guess if there are any gods or not.

Terrapin Station
9.1k
↪Frank Apisa


Yes. Obviously I disagree with you on that.

You do not believe that there would be any evidence or logical argumentation or rational facts, etc. that would suggest one answer versus another? — Terrapin Station

Well, I definitely do not do any "believing"...so obviously I do not "believe" that there would be any evidence or logical argumentation or rational facts on those things. You are correct that I 'DO NOT" believe those things.

If, however, you are asking if I am of the opinion that there are NO facts which substantively and unambiguously point to "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods"....

...that most assuredly IS my opinion.

Can you name one fact that substantively and unambiguously points to either "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods?"

I cannot even conceive of one that points to "there are no gods"...and the only one I can conceive of for "there is at least one god"...is if the god unambiguously revealed itself. I have seen no unambiguous evidence of that.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

So...if I know them to be blind guesses...you think it to be idiosyncratic for me to call them blind guesses rather than to use "believe????????????????????????????" — Frank Apisa


If you're really making blind guesses about something, how about spending some time rationally analyzing the issue at hand, and then examining empirical evidence, logical argumentation, etc. as appropriate? — Terrapin Station

Actually...a good idea.

And that is what I do.

But if the subject is: What is the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and can we exclude gods or must we include gods...

...then all I come up with is: Toss a coin.

It is a blind guess on those things...nothing more valuable than a blind guess.

Do you actually disagree with me on that?

I'm asking as nicely as I can, Terrapin. Do you actually disagree with me on that?

leo
255

It may be customary...BUT I DO NOT DO IT. I DO NOT DO BELIEVING. — Frank Apisa


I would "accept it as so." Yes...and today there are things I "accept as so." BUT I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD "BELIEVE" TO DISGUISE WHAT I AM DOING. I USE "I ACCEPT IT AS SO."

That is because I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


So you agree that you do what people do when they say they "believe" something. And you agree that they do believing. So logically, you do believing, you just don't call it that.

Why get so worked up about the word "belief", what is the terrible thing that would happen if you used that word? — leo

I do not do "believing."

I do not use the word "believe" to disguise the fact that I am accepting, or supposing, or guessing. So I do not do "believing."

You seem to be getting worked up over the notion that I will not substitute a word that makes what I am doing seem less clear.

Deal with that.

Any assertion that "there is a god" or "there are no gods" is nothing but a blind guess. It might as well be based on a coin toss...as the "subjective evidence" you pretend exists. — Frank Apisa


Subjective evidence exists to the people who experience it. A blind person will have no idea what the color blue is like, but surely that doesn't imply you don't see colors. So just because you have not experienced god, doesn't imply others haven't. — Leo

Okay...so let's use the opposite...let's use "I believe there are no gods."

Can you acknowledge that "I believe there are no gods" HAS TO BE A BLIND GUESS?

If you can, see if you can extrapolate from that...the notion that "I believe there is a GOD" is a blind guess also.

I KNOW what the dictionary definition of "belief" is. But I do not do "believing"...because I do not use the word to disguise a guess, estimate, opinion, or supposition. — Frank Apisa


If you know the dictionary definition of "belief", then you know that belief is not identical with a guess, or an estimate, or an opinion, or a supposition. So why do you keep attempting to equate belief with them? — Leo

Because when a person says, "I believe there are no gods"...that person IS expressing a blind guess. And so are the ones who say, "I believe there is a GOD."

If you are saying there are people who KNOW there is a god...that can be discussed. We can do it here or elsewhere.

Confidence in something, or the acceptance of something as true, is not a guess, nor an estimate, nor an opinion, nor a supposition. — Leo

Often it is.

"We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then..."

Read the OP...and take a look how this one poster uses the word "believe" in what he has to say.

The use of the word is what makes the issue nonsense. Each time he could have used "do you guess or suppose"...and everything could have been clearer. — Frank Apisa


If you attempt to replace belief in what the OP says with something else, you're changing what the OP says.

The concept of belief is useful, you have the right not to use it, but stop saying there is no need to use it because you believe that it is the same as a guess or a supposition. — Leo

Don't put words in my mouth.

I have never said anything about "believing" anything...and you know it. That is the point of this discussion.

And...there is no need to use it.

You're even contradicting yourself, because if to you "believe" means the same thing as "guess", then it would be as clear to use the word "believe" than to use the word "guess", yet you say that everything would have been clearer if "guess" was used instead of "believe". — Leo

That doesn't make enough sense to get a response beyond...that doesn't make sense.

If you agree that "believe" and "guess" are not the same, stop saying they are the same. And if you consider that "believe" and "guess" are the same, stop saying that it is clearer to use "guess" rather than "believe". — Leo

You do not get to tell me what I must stop doing.

Secondly, you are distorting what I have been saying.

BOTTOM LINE: I do not do "believing"...and I am getting a kick out of you being so bothered by that. Try to get control.

You have an internal conflict about the word "belief",

"Internal!" You have not been paying attention!

I am telling you that I do not use the word "believe" to disguise the fact that I am blindly guessing...when I am blindly guessing.

Not sure why that bothers you so much...but it has gotten to the point of being entertaining.

I'm not being condescending.. — Leo

Yeah, you really have been condescending. And my guess is you will continue to be.

...it's just what transpires through your posts, as shown by the self-contradiction above. And I believe that you need to engage in some introspection to find out why that is.

Aha...there you go again. As I guessed.

You are a joy to play with...although you ought really to sharpen your game.

LAST THOUGHT: I do not do "believing."

leo
254

I think we share similar lines of thought with respect to what belief is. However, I have this question I've wanted to ask someone, so here goes - often we try to reconcile knowledge in such a way that it matches that of others, for the most part, about a particular object/subject. So, is belief something that we should also attempt to reconcile? Or, is subjectivity one of the main aspects of belief and therefore they must remain isolated from those of others regardless of any commonalities. — BrianW


I think that knowledge is not independent of belief. Knowledge about a particular object/subject will be formulated in a framework that depends on the beliefs of the person formulating that knowledge. So for instance, in one framework the Sun can be described as a giant ball of incandescent plasma heated by the nuclear fusion in its core that has such and such properties, while in another framework the Sun can be described as a God with such and such characteristics.

And then when we try to reconcile knowledge with that of others, isn't it that we're fundamentally already attempting to reconcile beliefs? — leo

No need to "reconcile" "beliefs"...if one stops using the disguise "belief."

The notion that the "truth" of what IS...must be "reconciled" with what creatures like humans think and guess about it...is an absurdity.

fresco
3
:smile:
I see Frank is still trying to rationalise his escape from the Church ministry by brandishing his simplistic shield emblazoned with the word 'Guess' at all antagonists,. It is indeed a pity that, after all these years,he does not seem familiar with the plethora of epistemological literature available.

fresco. — fresco

Still up to this kind of crap, Fresco!

Okay. I guess I easily still get under your skin.

Good to see ya.

leo
253

But you and the other guy are the ones telling me that I should call my guesses "beliefs" for no good reason. — Frank Apisa


You can call your guesses guesses, but you're mistaking yourself if you 'believe' that you have no beliefs. Again, look at the dictionary definition of belief. — leo

I KNOW what the dictionary definition of "belief" is. But I do not do "believing"...because I do not use the word to disguise a guess, estimate, opinion, or supposition.

On the question of whether there are any gods or not...any "belief" expressed is NOTHING but a blind guess. — Frank Apisa


This is false. One who has felt god has their belief based in part on subjective evidence, so it is not a blind guess. — Leo

Bullshit. Any assertion that "there is a god" or "there are no gods" is nothing but a blind guess. It might as well be based on a coin toss...as the "subjective evidence" you pretend exists.

Because that is all they are doing...blindly guessing there is a god. — Frank Apisa


Their belief may be based on a blind guess or on their education or on what they want or on their past experiences, but you can't reduce all they are doing to "blindly guessing", there is much more to it than that. People don't dedicate their life to a blind guess. Their belief shapes their whole life and how they see the world, they live by their belief every passing moment, you can't reduce it to a blind guess like blindly guessing the result of the next football game. — Leo

There is nothing wrong with making blind guesses. I have made them...just as almost everyone has.

But make no mistake about it...guesses about whether there are gods or not...ARE blind guesses.

Yeah, it is a tough one to deal with for people like you. But is something you ought to do anyway.

I do use "confident" the way you are suggesting, but I know there is a bit of bullshit involved. Bottom line, I only use it in situations where who cares. I am confident the GIANTS made the right moves; I am confident that my short game will come around. That kind of thing. — Frank Apisa


It is customary to use the word belief in these cases too, "I believe they made the right move", "I believe it will come around". And you're not only using it in situations where it is inconsequential. Say you're crossing the road and you see a car racing towards you, you may be confident that if you run forward you will avoid it, but if you're wrong you die. — Leo

It may be customary...BUT I DO NOT DO IT. I DO NOT DO BELIEVING.

Or say you lived at a time where it was commonly accepted that the Sun revolved around the Earth, you would see the Sun move across the sky and you would be confident that the Sun revolves around the Earth, you would believe that, by the definition of belief. Today you may accept as true that the Earth revolves around the Sun, which is by definition a belief. — Leo

I would "accept it as so." Yes...and today there are things I "accept as so." BUT I REFUSE TO USE THE WORD "BELIEVE" TO DISGUISE WHAT I AM DOING. I USE "I ACCEPT IT AS SO."

That is because I do not do "believing."

So if you are confident about things, or you accept things as true, you do believing, by the definition of belief. — Leo

Now you are just arguing for the sake of arguing. You understand that I am saying that I do not use the word "believe" to mask the true nature of what I am doing. I am either guessing, supposing, opinion, suggesting, accepting...or any of those other things.

I HAVE NEVER SUGGESTED IN ANY WAY THAT I DO NOT DO THOSE THINGS. I have acknowledged that I do all those things.

But I insist that I do not disguise what I am doing by saying, "I believe..."

I have explained why I consider this important.

You want to be stone-headed and insist I cannot do that...when it is obvious that I can and do.

So...you are turning this thread into a discussion of me...rather than its intention...

...which is, "We Don't Want To Believe - Because, If We Believe, Then..."

Read the OP...and take a look how this one poster uses the word "believe" in what he has to say.

The use of the word is what makes the issue nonsense. Each time he could have used "do you guess or suppose"...and everything could have been clearer.

They are the same thing when dealing with fundamental questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...like, "Are there any gods or not?"

They are nothing but blind guesses. — Frank Apisa


People who have felt god do not base their belief in a god on a blind guess. — Go

Bullshit.

If you consider that the people who feel god blindly guess that the feeling they experience is that of god, then if we go down that rabbit hole it is a blind guess that other people have a consciousness, it is a blind guess that there is an external world that exists independently of you, so why do you focus on people who believe in a god or not?

Besides I have no problem with people basing their belief on a blind guess, or on whatever, the problem is when they try to force their belief onto others.

I could not care less about blind guesses.

When it comes to whether gods exist or not...I prefer not to make them.

I could not care less about whether you or anyone else does.

But I am going to call attention to the fact that it is more ethical to call blind guesses...blind guesses than to call them "beliefs."

leo
251

Why are these other two guys so upset with that? — Frank Apisa


Notice that you are the one getting upset. — leo

That condescending bullshit did cause me to react rather strongly.

Good for me.

But you and the other guy are the ones telling me that I should call my guesses "beliefs" for no good reason.

If a person says, "I blindly guess that there is a GOD"...that is not going to carry much weight. We would not have as many organizations (national and international) with the intention of "protecting" the right of people to blindly guess about gods. — Frank Apisa


Precisely because there is a difference between a belief and a blind guess. Why else would a belief carry more weight than a blind guess? — Leo

On the question of whether there are any gods or not...any "belief" expressed is NOTHING but a blind guess.

If you want to kid yourself into thinking differently...fine with me. I love a joke.

I mentioned this in a previous post but you didn't address it. When someone believes that there is a god, they think and act as if this god exists, sometimes they feel him, they expect to meet him at some point, all that they wouldn't do if they were just blindly guessing. By the very definition of belief, they are confident of the existence of a god, they accept the existence of a god as true, which is not what they would do if they were blindly guessing. — Leo

Sure they would. And do.

Because that is all they are doing...blindly guessing there is a god.

Do you still use the word "confident", as in you're confident such or such thing is going to happen? Are you sometimes confident of something? If so, you do believing, again by the definition of belief. — Leo

I do use "confident" the way you are suggesting, but I know there is a bit of bullshit involved. Bottom line, I only use it in situations where who cares. I am confident the GIANTS made the right moves; I am confident that my short game will come around. That kind of thing.

]quote]For some reason you want to equate "belief" with "blind guess", and again they are not the same thing, but I suppose you're going to evade this point once again and reply for the 25th time that you "do not do believing".[/quote]

They are the same thing when dealing with fundamental questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence...like, "Are there any gods or not?"

They are nothing but blind guesses.

Guys like you call them "beliefs" in order to pretend they are something more.

I'll give you this: You are doing a good job of kidding yourself.

Terrapin Station
9.1k

So you think it is idiosyncratic of me to call my blind guesses...blind guesses? — Frank Apisa


It's idiosyncratic to not call them beliefs when it's something you'd assert. Whether they're conventionally blind guesses hinges on whether you have any supporting empirical evidence, logical argumentation, etc. for them.
31 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Terrapin Station

So...if I know them to be blind guesses...you think it to be idiosyncratic for me to call them blind guesses rather than to use "believe????????????????????????????"

Pattern-chaser
1.1k
↪Frank Apisa
Personally, I use "believe" to describe anything I think is true. I use "know" to describe things that I'm a lot more sure about. But this seems to be a personal convention, even though (in philosophy forums) there is a clear need for these two terms, or two that offer the same semantic functionality.

Your wish to describe wild guesses as wild guesses is commendable; admirable. But your insistence that you don't do believing leads only to confusion, I think, as it isn't 100% clear what you mean by that. Whoever said communication was easy? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Point made...and taken.

But I have done my best to describe why I say what I say.

I want to be precise. And even if that is not accepted...why would a substitute seem a better choice than using the word that precisedly describes what I am saying.

If I am making a blind guess about something there is no way for me to know (in any meaningful notion of THAT word)...why on Earth would it be better to describe it as "I believe..." rather than "I blindly guess...?"

We both "know" the answer to that. Right.

If a person says, "I blindly guess that there is a GOD"...that is not going to carry much weight. We would not have as many organizations (national and international) with the intention of "protecting" the right of people to blindly guess about gods.

Same thing for the person who says, "I blindly guess there are no gods." Who really cares if someone blindly guesses there are gods...or there are no gods?

The reaction to someone stressing such a thought would elicit a mild laugh...and something akin to, "Okay...but shuffle and deal. You are holding up the game."

So...rather than reject the notion of "I believe..." as a substitute for "I blindly guess (estimate, suppose, opine)" in conversations about gods/no gods...I have decided not to use "believe" for any of those things even when it comes to things like, "I believe I'll have that left-over chicken for dinner tonight."

Why are these other two guys so upset with that?

I acknowledge that I make guesses...I have opinions...I do estimating. What is the big deal?