I reject the idea that the question can only be answered "yes" or "no." As has been pointed out by others, it can reasonably be answered "I do not know."

But I do agree with you that "are there any gods or not" is probably the wrong question. It is probably a false question.

The question ultimately has to do with the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and what we humans can accurately say about it. The answer to the false question seems to require saying that "X" (in this case, a creator god) MUST exist...or that (a creator god) CANNOT exist.

My reasoning is that one cannot logically answer the false question "yes" unless the "god" MUST exist, because there is no way to determine IF it exists. The "yes" answer prevails only if the god MUST exist.

Conversely, one cannot logically answer the false question "no" unless the "god" CANNOT exist, because there is no way to determine IF it exists. The "no" answer prevails only if the god CANNOT exist.

My take (which I have shared many times) 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 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.

Txastopher
165

Every person has the ability to die, thus every person has the right to die. — Shamshir


Great example of a non sequitur

People breathe and live, because they choose to breathe and live; and if they choose to die prematurely, the only way to stop them is to convince them that life is more desirable than death.
Indeed, people may be influenced one way or the other, but withholding their right to die is impossible, lest they are already dead.

I reiterate; Society may at best influence one to live and never enforce one to live.

Now, as to whether one should be influenced to change his course or be allowed to fall - who knows?
Yet, there is no reason not to live and die in ejoyment, no? And mutual enjoyment greatens one, whilst singular enjoyment contains one. — Shamshir


Utter nonsense. — Txastopher

If anyone's thoughts are nonsense (no reason any should be nonsense)...they are yours.

You made a claim to me earlier. I challenged you to show where that claim is written or promulgated.

No answer so far.

Perhaps you did just make it up.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
Are you claiming that all persons are subject to the laws of all countries, even if they are neither citizens of, nor residing, nor traveling, in the countries in question? Is that what you are saying I am not correct about?

If I am incorrect about that I would be very surprised. If I am correct about that, then unless Assange was in the US when the alleged crime was committed the US 'justice system' has no legal right to indict him in the first place. — Janus

I am saying that if Assange violated the laws of the United States...he can be charged with crimes and brought to the US for trial. In fact, he has been charged with the crimes.

During the Mueller, 13 Russian nationals were indicted...some of whom have never been in the US.

You should be surprised...because you are wrong.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

If you have opinions to share...share them. — Frank Apisa


At the moment I'm only interested in exploring your views as I have been attempting to do. If you don't want to respond to the questions I'm asking, then okay, there's not much we can do about that. — Terrapin Station

Sounds like a plan.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
If you are not a citizen of a country then you are not subject to its laws unless you are in that country. — Janus

On the off-shoot chance that you are correct (you are not)...it should be a snap for Assange to beat this rap. So no big deal.

Terrapin Station
8.6k
↪Frank Apisa


So would you say that something is a guess if it has evidential support, even if it's not certain? — Terrapin Station

If you have opinions to share...share them.

You are not Socrates...not by a long shot...and I am tired of the questions.

Share your opinions...or tell me what I have said with which you are in disagreement.

After a few exchanges of that sort...I may allow a few more question.

Janus
7k
↪Frank Apisa
No one seems to be able to say what law he has broken. Also Assange is not a US citizen.
25 minutes ago
Reply
Options — Janus

The charges seem to be that he assisted Chelsea Manning (at that time Bradley Manning) to break into US government computers and steal classified documents.

One does not have to be a citizen of a country to be charged with violating its laws.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.

Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"

For an answer of "YES" try these out:

Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.

Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.

Either it is certain...or it is a wish.

Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.

Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.

Either it is certain...or it is not. — Frank Apisa


Say what?

I'm not saying that it's a fact that either something is x or y.

I'm asking you if it's the case that you use the term "guess" so that either something is certain or it's a guess. Either you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way. (or if you think there's a third option aside from either it being the case that you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way, you could explain what the third option is maybe) — Terrapin Station

You are not very clear.

But now that I understand your question...

...my answer is, NO.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

So that (your question) is binary?

Ya mean there are no other choices? — Frank Apisa


Correct. Otherwise, what would you suggest as a third option? — Terrapin Station

Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.

Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"

For an answer of "YES" try these out:

Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.

Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.

Either it is certain...or it is a wish.

Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.

Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.

Either it is certain...or it is not.


For an answer of "NO"...try the same ones.

TheSageOfMainStreet
17
↪Frank Apisa

Since "Nice Guys Finish Last," I'd Rather Be Naughty


How about the non-existence of a similarly desired benefactor, Santa Claus? Is that a guess? Because his existence or non-existence can both be called "guesses," do we give equal credence to greedy children?

I actually fell for Pascal's Inquisition-fear nonsense when a Hawk used it about a missile system, "If I am right, it will save us from incineration by the Soviets; if I am wrong, it will only waste a tiny portion of the budget." — TheSageOfMainStreet

You must have felt terrible when you realized you'd fallen for it.

Pascal's Wager and Occum's Razor are the two most over-used; inappropriately used; erroneously used...philosophical memes. I laugh at them.

But back to that other thought...Santa...or the Easter Bunny...or Teapots and the like.

One can have an opinion on any of them (and most are absurd)...but if one insists that there are no teapots orbiting the sun...one better be prepared to PROVE that assertion in a rigorous discussion.

Same with Santa Claus.

Same with the Easter Bunny.

Same with the Tooth Fairy.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Where is this coming from? — Frank Apisa


It's just a question. Either you see things that way or you do not. — Terrapin Station

So that (your question) is binary?

That reminds me of the old, "I'd rather be dead than red."

Ya mean there are no other choices?

TheSageOfMainStreet
16
↪Frank Apisa


Their Loaded Question Should Fire Blanks

Even, "Do you believe in God?" begs the question. If honestly phrased, it would be "Do you believe in the existence of God?"

Supposed I asked, "Do you believe in Trump?" It would not mean, "Do you believe in the existence of Trump?" So by phrasing it in their pushy and accusatory way, they sneakily lead us towards an affirmative answer, because of course belief in God, in the literal sense as used with Trump, means that the person being interrogated has to be a supporter of God, which by theological definition has to be necessary if He exists. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Good point, Sage.

I deplore the "believe in" usage. I mentioned that many times here...and have written essays about it in other forums.

Not sure of what anyone means when they say, "I believe in democracy" for instance/

Very poor wording...as far as I am concerned.

If one is saying, "I prefer democratic government to totalitarian ones"...why not say that.

The "believe in" form is a dog.

Fact is, I do not even like the use of the word "believe" in discussions of this sort. When discussing the existence or non-existence of gods...there is almost nothing to work with that is unambiguous. So if you are actually saying, "My guess is..." or "I estimate that..." or "It is my opinion that..."...

...use those forms. j

I "believe" is a disguise.

Txastopher
164

Really?

Because you say so?

Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor? — Frank Apisa


Because that's how philosophy talks about rights. — Txastopher

I think it does not.

I'd be interested in a link to something written by a philosopher that suggests I am wrong.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess. — Frank Apisa


Do you see the only options as "Either P is a guess or it's certain"? — Terrapin Station

Where is this coming from?

If you have an argument to make...make it.

Txastopher
163

It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

So what?

Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning? — Frank Apisa


You appear to be using the term 'right' in a non-technical sense. Given the nature of this forum, your question requires acknowledgement of the philosophical use of 'right'.

You have no 'right' to eat oatmeal with creamer, which doesn't mean that you are not allowed to, but rather that it is a choice not contemplated by rights theories.

You may, however, have a right to your physical integrity, but if you do, you also have a corresponding duty to respect the physical integrity of others.

As with breakfast choices, there is nothing to stop you ending your own life, but if you wish to claim this as a 'right', the first step would be to identify a corresponding duty. — Txastopher

Really?

Because you say so?

Is it written on a tablet somewhere?

Or is it something you have invented...and are obligating everyone else to honor?

Gnostic Christian Bishop
177

I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. — Frank Apisa


It already exists in the Northern European countries.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Actually...it does not...but they are getting very, very close.

And it is significantly impacting on the rest of the world. We have people here in the US attempting to make the Northern European model be a model for us.

Right now...it is not working, because our country has moved so far to the right, the distance is too far.

But the time will come...and when a large country finally makes the move to what those smaller countries have...all countries will be forced in that direction.

EnPassant
92

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS. — Frank Apisa


Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for. — EnPassant

No more than the atheistic position...which is to say, it is nothing but blind guesswork.

You are way off base on this.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
174

We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions. — Frank Apisa


We as a world, yes. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

"We as a world" is what I am talking about.

The U.S. doing so would be irrelevant to the rest of the world. — Gnostic

No it wouldn't. If we achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world. If China or Russia achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.

I any country achieved it...it would be significant throughout the world.

Your letting your negative feelings about the US fracture your logic.

Unfortunately, Yanks misname what you propose socialism. Americans are not as bright as most when it comes to labels.

Whatever.

EnPassant
88

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet. — Frank Apisa


Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof. — EnPassant

For me...a "belief" in this context, is nothing more than a blind guess. I do not need any justifications...and would never ask for any. IF someone wants to guess one way or the other, let 'em.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.


Apologies, I misquoted you.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction. — Frank Apisa


I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands. — En Passant

What do you disagree with.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We have no way to estimate which is more likely.

What do you disagree with...and why?

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question? — Frank Apisa

My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.

The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options

Have no idea of what all that means.

I am saying we do not know if gods exist or not.

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

to be sure of being correct." — Frank Apisa


I want to focus on this first. Isn't this a reference to certainty? — Terrapin Station

It has that disadvantage in the scheme of what we have been discussing. I recognized that when I wrote it.

I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess.

"Certainty" as Richard Feynman used to mention...is not something come by easily. It is very, very, very difficult to obtain...and most cases of certainty can be challenged by artful discussion.

I can say, I am "certain" that my name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa...(and I can)...but even I am clever enough to challenge the "certain" using linguistic manipulation. (I'm not going to do it, so don't go there.)

But we can reasonable say, "I am certain London is the capital of England" "I am certain the mean temperature in Antarctica is lower than the mean temperature in the Sahara Desert"...an d things like that.

But for you to say "there are no gods"...is not in that same category. Your assertion is only a guess...and it has little to do with "certainty."

Terrapin Station
8.6k

I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here. — Frank Apisa


You have no idea what I'm asking when I ask how you'd define guessing? lol — Terrapin Station

If you had asked this...I would have understood.

This is what you actually asked:


How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things?

That is what I didn't understand.

As for "guessing"...I''ll go with:

" to estimate or suppose (something) without sufficient information to be sure of being correct."

Your assertion, "...it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability"...

...meets that.

Your comment IS a guess.

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess? — Frank Apisa


How would you defining guessing. where you're distinguishing it from other things? — Terrapin Station

I have absolutely no idea of what you were attempting to ask me here.

In any case, tell me how "there are no gods" can be anything but a "blind guess."

Txastopher
162
A right, in social contract theory, has a corresponding responsibility. It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed 'right' to die. — Txastopher

It is not immediately clear what responsibility obtains from the supposed right to eat oatmeal with creamer in morning.

So what?

Are you suggesting that limits one's right to eat oatmeal with creamer in the morning?

Terrapin Station
8.6k

It is a blind guess. — Frank Apisa — Terrapin Station

Yeah, it really is.

I am at a loss as to why you think not.

How can it be anything but a blind guess?

Tell us.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess. — Frank Apisa


No, it's not. Repeating that like a mantra doesn't make it so. — Terrapin Station

It is a blind guess.

If you do not get it...tough.

There are people being just as thick-headed insisting that "There is a GOD"...is not a blind guess either.

BOTH are blind guesses.

EnPassant
87

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other. — Frank Apisa


It is not about what is more likely because it is not about chance, it is about what is real. Why would it be about 'blind guessing'? It is about which argument is more persuasive and has the greatest explanatory — EnPassant

You are now trying to disguise "which is more likely"...by using "which argument is more persuasive."

Give it up.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction.

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question?

EnPassant
87

But the burden does accrue. — Frank Apisa


How can a burden of proof arise if neither side can prove their position? What accrues is a responsibility to present a persuasive argument. — EnPassant

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet.

The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — Frank Apisa


Blind guesses? It is neither delusion nor blind guesses. It is an assertion that can be argued for.

Go read that again.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not. — Frank Apisa


I agree with you on that, because of what "likelihood" is, and considering that I'm a frequentist. I don't buy Bayesian probability.

Nevertheless, it's easy to know there are no gods. That's not a "guess," and it doesn't have anything to do with probability. — Terrapin Station

It may be easy to say.

But "there are no gods" is nothing more than a blind guess.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely. — Frank Apisa


No. I'm not saying anything about likelihood. Empirical claims are not provable. To wonder if we've proved some empirical claim, or to ask for proof, is to commit a category error. And even in the realms where proofs are pertinent--mathematics and logic, proofs are simply a matter of whether something follows from the rules of the system in question, as we've constructed the system.

There are reasons to believe one thing over another. We can simply talk about those reasons. This has nothing to do with "guessing." You seem focused on certainty (which is why you'd use the term "guess" in counterdistinction to it), which is a complete waste of time. — Terrapin Station

I am NOT focused on certainty, Terrapin. There is no way I can see that anyone can be certain there is a god (are gods) involved in the REALITY of existence.

BUT...there also is no way to assign likelihood to whether there are gods or not.

THAT is what I am focused on.

Your comment about "compelling reasons for belief" caused me to think you suppose one case is more likely than the other...and that it can be shown to be more likely. (Otherwise why would you say that?)

This is a hard thing to get...took me years and years...BUT...a "belief" on the issue of "are there any gods or are there no gods" IS nothing but a blind guess.

If I were to ask, "Are there any sentient beings on the sixth planet out from the fifth closest star to Sol?"...the only thing one could do is to GUESS. There is nothing else to work with. Even if we could come up with the likelihood of sentient life elsewhere in the galaxy or universe...the likelihood of life on that particular planet (if it even exists)...is a total unknown at this point. Any "belief" (YES or NO) would be nothing but a blind guess.

So, too with, "Are there any gods in existence."

Until everyone finally gets that...these discussions go nowhere.

Terrapin Station
8.5k

I guess that is fair to say that I am not doing a good job proving God's existence, for my arguments, although not yet proven in this thread, are illogical, incoherent, and delusional. — SethRy


"Proof" is a red herring on both sides. How about just giving compelling reasons for belief? — Terrapin Station

You seem to be thinking that a case can be made that one side or the other is more likely.

Why?

Just as you realize there is no "proof" one way or the other...you should realize there is no "more likely" one way or the other.

Both of those things are merely what one wants to do...to guess one way or the other.

That is all anyone can do on the question of whether gods exist or not...is to blindly guess one way or the other...

...or JUST NOT GUESS.

Purple Pond
466

Does someone want to die? So be it. — Wallows

I don't agree in every case. What about the case where someone wants to die when they're in severe pain, however in the future they will be grateful that they're still alive when the pain goes away?

No point in guilt-tripping a troubled mind already. — Wallows

If it prevents someone from committing suicide, why not? — Purple Pond

Why on Earth "prevent" a suicide?

Someone works up the courage to jump off a bridge...and someone saves them!

I cannot conceive of anything more disgusting.

If someone wants to die...that person should be allowed to die.

Your later comment that it will hurt someone psychologically...is correct, but so what?

The person wanted to die. The person being psychologically hurt has to get over it.

Janus
7k

Don't mistake Assange for a white knight. He might have been, but he's not. — Wayfarer


I haven't said Assange is a "white knight". I see no reason to doubt he is a flawed human being just like the rest of us. The real issue is over whether he has by any reasonable criteria committed any crime, or whether he is just being made into a "whipping boy", to be set up as a cautionary example by corrupt power elites. — Janus

The way to find out if Assange is guilty of a crime or not...is to have him stand trial. We have laws in the United States...and he has been charged with breaking at least one of those laws. (A serious one...not jaywalking.)

He should be brought to trial.

My guess is he will have a formidable defense team...financed by people who think he is being wronged.

The trial will determine whether he broke the law or not.

If not found guilty...he should be immediately released to whatever country he wants as home. If found guilty...he should pay the price the law calls for.

EnPassant
85

No, theism is held under the same scrutiny as everything else, so when theists provide flawed or illogical arguments, it's pointed out. — Christoffer

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core belief in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for. — EnPassant

Try that comment of yours using the true meaning of a "belief" in a "Is there a god or are there no gods" context...which is "blind guess." So it becomes:

The flaws, such as they are, are only secondary items that arise when ontological realities are translated into intellectual/philosophical/theological terms. The core blind guesses in the spiritual reality of the world can be coherently argued for.

Does that sound any more like bullshit now?

EnPassant
85

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof. — Frank Apisa


Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done. — EnPassant

If a person makes an assertion or claim...the burden of proof arises.

Most theists and atheists never even make an attempt at doing so...and that is their right. (Mostly because neither can even come close to doing it.)

But the burden does accrue.

If you do not GROK that...you are in the wrong conversation in the wrong forum.

Noah Te Stroete
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
You didn’t understand his position that God is not accessed through empirical observation but through subjective experience, which by definition cannot be properly relayed between individuals. — Noah Te Stroete

You did not understand mine.

Mine is that if a person makes an assertion or claim in a discussion in a philosophy forum...that person incurs the burden of proof for the assertion.

— EnPassant

Yo...

...if someone wants to assert "they are not unknown" or that "they know GOD"...

...they bear the burden of proof.

I'm not going to ask for it, because I can consider it to be impossible. ***

In any case, you are talking in the abstract. Are you suggesting that YOU can...

a) make the assertion "At least one god exists" and prove the existence of at least one god...or...
b) Provide someone else who can do that?

***
Proving the assertion "no gods exist" IS IMPOSSIBLE.

Proving the assertion, "There is at least one god" is technically possible. A person could produce a being that could definitely be identified as a god. But, an easier task would be proving one is Napoleon.

EnPassant
81

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. — Frank Apisa


Some would say they are not unknown. Some say they know God. — EnPassant

Some would say they are Napoleon.

What should be obvious to everyone is that in an Internet forum devoted to Philosophy...if the subject of the existence or non-existence of gods arises...

...proponents of neither side should state their case as an assertion or claim. The moment one does that...a burden of proof accrues that just cannot be met.

"Beliefs" or "guesses" are fine. But the guess "There are no gods" and the guess "There is at least one GOD"...are essentially identical. Both are nothing more than blind guesses about the unknown. They happen to be in opposite directions...but that is almost incidental.

The "But my guess is more likely than your guess" nonsense...is laughable.

Christoffer
510

Fuck Russel. — Frank Apisa


Really? You're pretty insignificant compared to his contribution to philosophy and you pretty much ignore him just because it's convenient for you. If that's the level you want to hold the discussion, then goodbye.
an hour ago
Reply
Options — Christoffer

Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

At one point in our history, America made a commitment to transport men to the moon...and to return them safely to Earth. To our credit...we did it.

We should now make a commitment to insure that every human on the planet should have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.

NOW!!!