Christoffer
507
↪Frank Apisa


The claim "there are no gods" is an unfalsifiable claim upon an unfalsifiable idea. The claim "there is a god" or "there are gods" must first be made before someone can claim "there are no gods". A child born in isolation and who knows nothing of religion will not claim "there are no gods". Burden of proof applies to the initial claim. By saying that burden of proof applies to "there are no gods", you are ignoring Russel's whole logic, simple as that. Read Russel. — Christoffer

Fuck Russel.

ANYONE making an assertion of fact...(like, there are no gods)...incurs a burden of proof obligation.

If you want to think otherwise...fine with me. But there is not a logician in the world who would agree with you.

So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof. — Frank Apisa

The burden of proof applies only to when someone makes a claim. — Christoffer

If one makes the assertion (claim) "There are no gods"...

...the burden of proof accrues.

If governments controlled disposable income of the .1 %, would poverty end?
123

I doubt it.

BUT if we wanted to end poverty...we could easily do it. We could end poverty all across the planet.

Every person could have adequate food, clothing, shelter, educational opportunities, medical care...and even communication and entertainment devises....like phones and televisions.

I have no idea of why we are not doing it...but it is to our shame that we allow it to exist.

As the OP suggests, there is no unambiguous evidence that any gods exist...and no unambiguous evidence that there are no gods.

Some people guess there is a GOD; some that there are gods; some that there are no gods.

Nobody should be asked for proof. I never do. There is none. If people want to guess for one reason or another...let 'em.

HOWEVER, if a person makes an assertion in a philosophical discussion...that person incurs the burden of proof for that assertion. So...anyone asserting "There are no gods" or "There is a GOD"...a burden of proof is created for which there is no unambiguous proof.

WHEN AI comes to actual fruition...

...it will do its best to eliminate homo sapiens as the dominant entity on his planet...

...or it will NOT have come to actual fruition.

Any human who does not see the ebola virus as a danger to humankind...is lacking in humanity and intelligence.

Any AI that would not see humanity as a viral danger to this planet (wider range of thought)...is lacking in intelligence also.

AI comes...we go. Probably a lot sooner than we think right now.

Dan, In this piece, you highlight one of the reasons I so often rail against the use of descriptors...because they often have different meanings to different people. For some people, descriptors can have different meanings in at different times or in different contexts.

Some descriptors, in my opinion, are virtually useless because of that.

Atheism, agnostic atheism, naturalism, supernaturalism and the like just do not truly mean anything.

Best to thoroughly describe a position...and then use the descriptor as a shortcut in other parts of a commentary.

christian2017
182
↪Frank Apisa


Ask one of the other kids on the playground! They'll tell you., — Frank Apisa


Lol, so far thats pretty much what this forum is typically. I'm no different. I do agree either the OP or someone else needs to sit down and flesh out the statistical analysis of life after death. To say its impossible to gain knowledge of life after death is clearly outside of your current expertise. — christian2017

Respectfully as possible, Christian...anyone who thinks they can calculate the probability that there is life after death (or that there is nothing after death)...is kidding him/her self.

It is possible to gain knowledge about the issue, however. It is possible to realize and acknowledge that what happens after death is unknown.

We can guess.

Ya gotta be satisfied with that.

christian2017
178

The guess itself could as easily and logically be based on a coin toss...as on any of the bullshit that has been offered here so far.

The probability estimates being offered are a joke...and anyone giving them any consideration above being a joke...is a joke also. — Frank Apisa


Stop whining you troll. . — christian2017

I do not whine...and I do not troll.

If 100 people came back from the dead somehow and said they saw xyz while they were in this other state, that would certainly add information to the whole issue. — Christian

IF 100 people could shit gold...those 100 people would not have to work very hard, would they?

Your comment was dumb...by every metric imaginable.

Anytime you add information to a particular topic that also adds the ability to apply statitistical analysis to that particular topic. — Christian

Nobody is adding anything of value for a statistical analysis of whether or not there is life after death.

Not one goddam thing!

Your a joke. Stop trolling — Christian

"YOUR"...Jesus H. Christ. Bad enough you spelled statistical wrong in the earlier sentence...

...BUT "your!"

Ask teacher what is wrong with that.

Ask one of the other kids on the playground! They'll tell you.,

christian2017
177

I already told you. Im not interested in that right now. Im trying to find out why you think everyone disagrees with you, and rejects what you are saying as nonsense.
Are you willing to commit, barring someones declaration of strong atheism, that your position is that ALL the people saying the exact same thing about your “probability” basis and its lack of validity lack the comprehension to grasp your argument? — DingoJones


I don't necessarily think you can't put a probability on the things he came up with. Its just i'm not sure enough steps (correct procedure) were taken in the algorithm to come up with a better statistical probability for those event to occur. In some cases probability is more easily calculated and in other cases it takes a tremendous more amount of care and attention to come up with a better probability of something occuring. — christian2017

If you are talking about whether or not there is life after death...WHICH YOU SHOULD BE...

...there is NO WAY to assess probability in either direction.

None...zero...nil...zip.

You can guess.

You may guess right...and if you guess "Yes there is" or "No there is not"...it is certain you may be right.

The guess itself could as easily and logically be based on a coin toss...as on any of the bullshit that has been offered here so far.

The probability estimates being offered are a joke...and anyone giving them any consideration above being a joke...is a joke also.

Devans99
1.5k

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating." — Frank Apisa


Which of my axioms is 'invented'? — Devans99

All of 'em.

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong. — Frank Apisa


Is there any philosophical question to which your answer is not 'I don't know'? — Devans

Very few.

You ought to give it a try.

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY? — Frank Apisa


I don't make blind guesses; I deduce, induce, abduce and estimate. — Devans

You make blind guesses...and pretend they are those things.

You will be a better "philosopher" when you break that habit.

I think you will find that consciously or subconsciously you use the same method. There is substantial evidence (MRI scans etc...) that the mind is wholly part of the brain. So a soul is very unlikely. Induction.

(Shakes his head...and gets ready for work.)

Devans99
1.5k

I don't believe in the soul personally. — Devans99

Can you see that as meaning..."the existence of a soul" is not one of my blind guesses about the REALITY?

Devans99
1.5k

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS. — Frank Apisa


ALWAYS WAS is only possible via TIMELESSNESS - once you accept that infinite regresses are impossible, thats the only way it can be logically. I am not claiming that the first cause is God, just claiming that there is a first cause.

I am afraid I do not see the flaws in my argument... please enlighten me. — Devans99

You have been enlightened. But you refuse the light.

You MAY BE correct about a first cause, but you may be dead wrong.

The "light" is not that you are wrong...but that you MAY be wrong.

Bad idea to start with axioms that you invent...which is what you do...and which is why so many people charge you with variations on "pontificating."

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
Think of a finite regress like a pool table:

{ 'cue hits white', 'white hits black', 'black goes in hole' }

Would the black go in the hole if the cue did not hit the white?

No. So if the start element is missing, there is no regress. So there can be no infinite regresses. — Devans99

The thing you are refusing to see, Devans...is that while you have the white ball hitting the black ball and going into the hole using a cue stick held by something that ALWAYS WAS.

You have no problem at all with something that ALWAYS WAS...so long as it can lead to a god.

The "infinite regression" argument is a ruse.

The question for me...and I suspect for some of the others, is whether you truly do not see the flaws or if you do see them but are being stone-headed about it.

Christoffer
483

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing. — Frank Apisa


I've never proposed taking linguistic lessons from me. But your linguistic skills do not have to be a hunchback in order to be lacking in efficiency. :razz: — Christoffer

As I've mentioned, my "linguistic skills" have gotten my opinions published in places where it was very difficult to be published. People like you post here...where the only barrier is the ability to hit the POST button.

I am not lacking in linguistic skills. Your problem is that YOU want to define "good linguistic skills"...so that you can classify mine as deficient.

I've already had successes in the "linguistics skills" area you probably will never have. So take your self-serving "definitions" and shove 'em. :wink:

S
9.6k

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off. — Frank Apisa


It's the stick approach, as opposed to the carrot approach. You use the same approach, but I'm better at it, and more funny. It might be seen as a jerk-off thing to say, but it is true that you could improve your writing if you set aside your pride and took on board my criticism, as well as that of Christoffer. — S

I'd sooner take lessons in improving my posture from Quasimodo than take lessons from you or Chris in how to improve my writing.

Devans99
1.5k

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God." — Frank Apisa


Apart from that bit which I agree is a stretch, what do you disagree with?

Do you reject the logical necessity of a first cause? — Devans99

C'mon, Devans.

Your comment reminds me of the, "Apart from that bit, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the play?"

Devans99
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree the 4th is not valid. What are your objections to the others?
a minute ago
Reply
Options — Devans99

They all end with..."...this everyone refers to as God."

I, for one, refer to it as "we do not know."

Aquinas was an intelligent man for his day and respect him...

...but his argument can easily be defeated by a Philosophy 101 student.

Christoffer
477
↪Frank Apisa


In the context of the argument being discussed, it is not valid and does not have any relation to it at all. So, what is your point? The argument isn't valid to support what is being proposed. — Christoffer

The question asked of me...which was the reason for my response, was:

Gentlemen (he asked me an others), please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”?

My response was valid...and responsive.

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
He is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers of all time. Certainly you should not dismiss him without at least spending some time on the 5 ways. — Devans99

The 5 ways...the 5 "proofs"...

...are a joke.

Devans99
1.5k
↪S
It cannot have existed forever in time. Thats impossible as Thomas Aquinas showed and I have shown many times on this forum. — Devans99

Thomas Aquinas never showed it...

...and neither have you.

I calculate a 94.6% chance that you are wrong in all your calculations.

S
9.6k

At least I don't assume the universe was created by magic. — Devans99


But I don't. I don't assume that the universe was created, let alone created by magic.

Whereas my mockery version of your argument, which resembles the logic of a little child, is actually pretty much your actual argument. — S

In most of your posts to me...and about me...you are being a jerk-off.

But here, I agree totally.

I, also, am not assuming the universe is a creation...let alone by magic.

I do not know if the universe is a creation or not...and if it is a creation (one possibility), I certainly do not know the mechanisms of the creation.

Devans is pretending he knows...or can calculate...that it was (or most likely was) a creation...

...and he pretty much can limit how the creation came to happen.

Christoffer
475

If anything, I am an agnostic. — Frank Apisa


Not a foundation for a rational argument, irrelevant.

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. — Frank Apisa


THIS IS NOT A VALID ARGUMENT — Christoffer

Really.

Okay...a moment of agreement with us.

I agree that your comment is not a valid argument.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

On your home page, you mention that you are a NYC guy.

Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street. — Frank Apisa


Ah--no, I'm not familiar with it. I'm not much of a bar person. — Terrapin Station

Understood!

DingoJones
704
↪Frank Apisa
↪Devans99


↪S
↪Christoffer


I tagged the people in this thread, but there are more people who disagree with you on the same things as we do from other threads since you’ve uses this stuff as a basis for a bunch of threads. In fact, no one agrees with you that Ive seen.

Gentlemen, please sound off. Which of you are “strong atheists”? — DingoJones

If anything, I am an agnostic.

I prefer not to use the descriptor...but instead state my position as:

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.

Wallows
7.5k
I'm trying to draw out the motivation behind or driving this thread... — Wallows

I think Gnostic Bishop was attempting to find out how people feel about the prospect of death...and pt it into the "are you happy about the prospect" form.

Some of us answered...and once that happened, it ran dry. And as often happens in these situations, it is now on a (perhaps appropriate, perhaps not so appropriate) tangent.

Wallows
7.5k
You mean as a thought or an obsession sort of thing that is happening with this thread? — Wallows

???

On your home page, you mention that you are a NYC guy.

Most people from NYC know the Frying Pan. It is probably the most famous watering hole in the town during the summer months...a former lightship moor against a pier that juts out into the Hudson River at 26th Street.

Never visited it?

— Terrapin Station

So...you know there are no gods.

Tell me...do you spend any time on the Frying Pan?

Terrapin Station
8.4k

Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa


Yes. Many aspects of it. — Terrapin Station

Either the answer is "YES"...without that qualifier...

...or it is "NO."

Which is it?

For instance...are there any gods involved in the REALITY...or are there none?

Terrapin Station
8.4k

So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence? — Frank Apisa


Via observations and reasoning basically.

(I don't want to answer more than one thing at a time, because I want to focus on stuff so that we make progress with it.) — Terrapin Station

Are you actually saying you DO KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Terrapin Station
8.4k

Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence. — Frank Apisa


Right. So what would be interesting to me is to figure out why you would say this. — Terrapin Station

Allow me a question, because what would be interesting to me is to figure out why YOU would think anyone with a brain would say anything differently.

So...do you...or anyone you know...KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence?

Do you KNOW, for instance, are there any gods involved?

Are there no gods involved?

Is what we humans call "the universe" all there is?

Is there anything within the thing we humans call "the universe" that humans do not know...or CANNOT ever know?

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


What I'm trying to explore is why you'd think that I don't know the true nature of reality. — Terrapin Station

For starters, I will acknowledge it is a guess, Terrapin.

Tell ya what...I will acknowledge something else: My guess is that NOBODY on the planet knows the true nature of the REALITY of existence. In fact, my guess is that NOBODY in history...nobody who has ever lived...has known the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I hope that gives you a clue as to why I guess YOU do not know.

Christoffer
445

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate. — Frank Apisa


Because you haven't put forth any real argument against what I wrote about, you stopped at a semantical error and are just spamming posts about things already addressed. Move on to the definitions given in my answer to Daniel Cox, that's the latest point in the discussion. What you are doing right now is going back to the bullying mentality of previous posts you've made and I couldn't care less. — Christoffer

You are being a jerk on this...so...as I said, we can just leave it be.

Your notions on the word "atheist" are all wet.

Your notions on the word "believe" are all wet also.

And while that may seem trivial...those two things are more important to real discussion of the topics at hand here than any of the other bullshit that is thrown around.

As for the language you have so much trouble with...stop making it be the word "bullshit", for instance...and pay more attention to words like "atheist" and "believe."

The sound "cuff" is acceptable...but turn it around and make the sound "fuck"...and people like you go ape. Of all the conventions of humans...that particular one is the most childish.

Christoffer
443

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you. — Frank Apisa


And you ignore the rest because of the semantics, not the linguistic pragmatics of it. Daniel Cox didn't have a problem understanding what I wrote, why would you? — Christoffer

Think about that!

In any case, since I found legitimate fault with the first sentence...why are you assuming I did not find lots of fault with the rest, because "the rest" had your first thoughts as a predicate.

The use of "belief" here is as useless as the use of the word "atheism."

Neither communicates what really has to be communicated for a reasonable discussion to occur.

Christoffer
435

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly. — Frank Apisa


It's clearly described in my previous posts. I won't waste time repeating myself because you can't scroll to the top of this page to read the answer to Daniel Cox. He brought up the same kind of question about my definitions of atheism as you did and I put forth an answer to why I define atheism in the way I do and why I don't agree on atheism to be defined in numerous vague definitions. — Christoffer

Your very first sentence in that post is totally wrong. And I have explained that to you.

That is why I've asked for the clarification.

No problem. We'll just let that be for now.

Devans99
1.4k

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction. — Frank Apisa


It's good not to hold too many beliefs. I believe completely only in logic, probability, some of the rest of maths and what is deduced from 'I think therefore I am'.

Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution).

Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not.

I think everyone does something similar, consciously or sub-consciously, we assign probabilities to inductive propositions. — Devans99

I totally understand, Devans.

A few, if I may, though.

"Then there are things that I have such a high conviction in that they class as a belief even though they cannot be known with complete certainty (eg: gravity, evolution)."

NO "beliefs" are known with complete certainty. The moment you know something with complete certainty...there is no need for "belief."

So that sentence does not make sense.

"Then there are all the other propositions, all of which I assign probabilities as to whether they are correct or not."

You do NOT assign probabilities to them...you invent probabilities. 87.46% of all statistics are made up right on the spot, Devans.

You are doing that same thing with 94.75% of all the probability estimates you make.

86,9% of all your "probability estimates" are incorrect. And of the remaining 14.1%...almost 37% are questionable.

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind — Frank Apisa


Dude, this is about life after death not God. Two different questions. Life after death is possible without God as pointed out in the OP.

I subscribe to no conventional religion. Deism is probably the best description (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism). — Devans99

Yes...and almost all houses have a door in front and a door in back.

It does not matter if you use the door in front or the door in back...if you are using one of the doors to enter...IT IS THE HOUSE YOU ARE TRYING TO ENTER.

In any case, your "probability" estimates for almost everything you speak to are NOT probability estimates at all. You do not have the numbers and facts necessary for such estimates...although that does not stop you from pretending you do.

The chances that there is life after death...are not calculable.

If you want to blindly guess there is life after death...do it.

If you want to blindly guess there is no life after death...do it.

But to pretend this is a discussion legitimately probing whether there is or not...and that you can calculate the probability in any way...

...is disingenuous.

Christoffer
433

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean... — Frank Apisa


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pragmatics

So...if there was a point that you were making back there...perhaps you could make it again...and we can discuss it. — Frank Apisa


Previous posts include what I mean, primarily my answers to Daniel Cox digs deeper into the meaning of my original post. — Christoffer

I definitely did not get what you meant...and as I pointed out, some of what you said is questionable and not worded clearly.

But, if it is not important enough for you to pursue...okay.

All of your "calculations" are merely extensions of blind guesses that you refuse to acknowledge as blind guesses, Devans.

You are determined to prove there is a god...and it is almost certain, you are determined to show that the god in question is one you have in mind.

Sometimes you attempt it out-front...with integrity; sometimes using back-door methods that lack integrity.

Either way...it is almost certain you will not succeed. I, personally, think it cannot be done. I know for certain that some very intelligent people have attempted to do it...and come up very short.

But, I will acknowledge that you, here in a relatively small Internet forum...MIGHT do it.

So far...you are about at strike seventeen.