Devans99
1.4k
↪Frank Apisa
Interesting point. I think that statement (a) is not clear. It could be interpreted as a belief that no gods exist at all. I've tried to rephrase it below to make the distinction clearer:

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist
a1) I do not have any beliefs in the existence of any particular gods.

b) I "believe no gods exist."
b1) I hold a belief that no gods exist.

So (a1) leaves room for some sort of agnosticism; there is no explicit belief that God does not exist, just a lack of belief that any particular god exists?

Whereas (b1) is an active believe that no gods exist at all. — Devans99

Thank you.

I think I made it quite clear in what I said.

This is a point I have discussed hundreds of times over two decades of posting on the Internet.

I, personally, do not "believe" there are any gods.

I, personally, ALSO do not "believe" there are no gods.

I do not hold a "belief" in either direction.

Christoffer
431
↪Frank Apisa


Yes, you are correct about the grammars. But taking things out of context like this is not very linguistically pragmatic. The semantics, as I mentioned, does not erase the core of how I classify between different standpoints. — Christoffer

Not sure what "linguistically pragmatic" is supposed to mean...but my comment was important to what ou wrote.

The two statements are different...and essential to the difference between weak and strong atheism. And, the issue, as far as my experience shows, is raised more by agnostics than theists.

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

fishfry
542

We do not know for certain what he is being charged with...but it appears he is being charged with aiding Chelsea Manning (when she was Bradley Manning) to hack government computers in order to obtain unauthorized access to government classified documents. — Frank Apisa


I'll state Greenwald's observations in my own words so that if you are so inclined, you can discuss them here.

Assange is charged with helping Manning "hack," or penetrate, a government computer; meaning to access files that Manning was not entitled to see.

On the contrary, what Assange actually did was to (unsuccessfully) assist Manning in attempting to cover her tracks when she was accessing files that she already had legal access to. In doing so, Assange was conforming to standard journalistic practice when dealing with whistleblowers and other sources who dare not have their identity disclosed. For Assange to have done anything other than assist Manning in disguising her identity, would have been journalistic malpractice.

Secondly, I do of course take your point that Assange might (or might not; time will tell) have the opportunity to defend himself in a court of law. I assert to the contrary that any such prosecution (and there's a long long way to go before any such proceeding happens) is essentially illegitimate. The US prosecution (and persecution) of Assange is more like a show trial in a banana republic. You may recall that nothing that happened in Nazi Germany was illegal. That's because the law and the judiciary themselves became corrupted.

Assange is a political prisoner. That should color your analysis regarding this idea of a fair trial. The very idea that he's on trial in the first place is indecent. — fishfry

We do not know what Manning is charged with yet. Greenwald doesn't either. But WHATEVER it is...it is a charge brought by our government...and Assange should stand trial.

Whether you feel it will be a fair trial or not does not matter to me. I am confident that my country can bring charges and conduct a fair trial...and that is what I expect.

We determine the guilt or non-guilt by a trial.

There is no way I buy into your assertion that the prosecution or the charges are illegitimate. That is for the courts to decide.

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


So it would follow that I'm not interested in a conversation with you, right? — Terrapin Station

I hope not, Terrapin.

I enjoy our conversations.

Here...let me make a modified version of the post that seems to have caused a problem.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I am using the word "know" here in the same way I would be using it if we were having coffee at a cafe'...and I said, "I know my name is Frank Apisa"...or..."I know the capital of England is London"...or "I know 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10."

Now...what problems do you have with that.

Just that...just what I wrote...not any interpretations or modifications of what I wrote. If you are unclear on anything...ask. But please, only ask if something truly is unclear to you...rather than just to try to fuzz up the issue.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say. — Frank Apisa


I do mind, because for me to think that a conversation is worthwhile, I need to know that you can think about things off-script.

You need to be able — Terrapin Station

If you cannot use the words I use when commenting on my comments...and prefer to make up words of your own...

...you are NOT commenting on what I wrote.

If you are not commenting on what I wrote...why the hell involve me?

Quote what I say...and comment on that.

Don't make crap up.

If you think I am being unfair by asking you not to make stuff up...not much I can do.

fishfry
538

Are you also saying he is charged with committing journalism? — Frank Apisa


Yes. I say that. Please read what Glenn Greenwald has to say. He breaks it down in detail. The "computer hacking" charge is a blatant lie.

https://theintercept.com/2019/04/11/the-u-s-governments-indictment-of-julian-assange-poses-grave-threats-to-press-freedoms/

The other key fact being widely misreported is that the indictment accuses Assange of trying to help Manning obtain access to document databases to which she had no valid access: i.e., hacking rather than journalism. But the indictment alleges no such thing. Rather, it simply accuses Assange of trying to help Manning log into the Defense Department’s computers using a different username so that she could maintain her anonymity while downloading documents in the public interest and then furnish them to WikiLeaks to publish.

In other words, the indictment seeks to criminalize what journalists are not only permitted but ethically required to do: take steps to help their sources maintain their anonymity. As longtime Assange lawyer Barry Pollack put it: “The factual allegations … boil down to encouraging a source to provide him information and taking efforts to protect the identity of that source. Journalists around the world should be deeply troubled by these unprecedented criminal charges.”


There's much more in the article. Please read it. — fishfry

If Glenn Greenwald wants to come here to discuss this with me...he is welcome to come.

I am discussing it with the people who are here.

Here is what I am saying to you: Assange IS NOT being charged with "journalism."

We do not know for certain what he is being charged with...but it appears he is being charged with aiding Chelsea Manning (when she was Bradley Manning) to hack government computers in order to obtain unauthorized access to government classified documents.

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


I'm using "feel" in the sense of being aware of something or experiencing something. You're aware of/you experience that you know this, right? — Terrapin Station

IF you do not mind, Terrapin...so that we are on the same page when we talk...I would prefer you use MY language when addressing what I say.

I am saying I KNOW I do not KNOW the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I did not use the word "feelings" in there...so if you are questioning me on what I wrote...

...use the words I wrote.

But I appreciate that you finally step back from the way of writing you did before.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.) — Frank Apisa


Please explain how the difference between A and B is more than just in their phrasing. They both refer to a "belief" in the non-existence in God or Gods. — Christoffer

I'll take this first...and we can cover the other stuff in your post after hashing this out.

I am astonished that you do not see the significant difference between the two statements. It happens to be at the crux of "strong atheism" and "weak atheism"...so it has gotten more than its fair share of play.

Take (b) first: I "believe" no gods exist.

THAT is a statement of "belief" (or guess)...that no gods exist. It IS a "belief" as much as the "belief" "I 'believe' at least one god exists." It simply is a "belief" in the opposite direction.

One could not logically say: I "believe" no gods exist...and I "believe" gods do exist.

But with (a): I do not "believe" any gods exist...we are not dealing with a "belief." We are dealing with a lack of a "belief." The person is saying essentially, "There are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them." Or..."gods exist" is NOT one of my "beliefs."

A person could easily say, "I do not 'believe" any gods exist" (meaning I am not one of the group who "believe" gods exist"...and could logically follow that up with, "I also do not 'believe' there are no gods"...meaning "There are people who 'believe' no gods exist. I am not one of those people."

(b) is a statement of "belief."

(a) is a statement of a lack of "belief."

Full stop for now...

...your comments, please.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

OF COURSE I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY. — Frank Apisa


So is it not the case that you feel that you don't know the true nature of reality?

You don't feel that you know the true nature of reality, do you? — Terrapin Station

I KNOW I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

It is not a feeling...it is what I know.

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


So if you know that, doesn't it follow that you don't know the true nature of reality? — Terrapin Station

Oops, just caught this.

OF COURSE I DO NOT KNOW THE TRUE NATURE OF REALITY.

Have you read what I have been saying?

Here is something I wrote:


I said, "I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

Two or three times now!

I do not know the true nature of REALITY.

I did not say I FEEL that way...so that you could ask why I should think you should FEEL that way.

Guys...wife and I are leaving for a family gathering.

I'll miss yez.

Be back tonight.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

I did NOT say I feel that I don't know... — Frank Apisa


Do you know that you have no idea about the true nature of reality? — Terrapin Station

I do.

The interpretation of "atheism" is commonly about atheists demanding proof for something to exist. If you "do not believe in God", which is another interpretation of atheism, mainly made by theists, you need to accept that it is a belief and therefore the opposite, "there is a God", might be true. This would mean that it's rather an agnostic point of view. — Christoffer

Obviously you are having a bit of trouble with the language used in this kind of discussion.

I call your attention to the fact that

a) I do not "believe" any gods exist

...is not the same as...

b) I "believe no gods exist."

They are VERY different...and convey totally different thoughts.

The "definition" you were making that you say theists mainly use...should not have been "do not believe in God"...but rather "believe God does not exist." (Frankly, I think that distinction is made more often by agnostics than theists.)

ASIDE: The singular is inappropriate for this kind of discussion. It should be "gods" or "at least one god." The use of "God" as you used it seems to be pointing to one particular god. And the use of "believe in" is off the charts.

Anyway..."believing" when used about gods...really is just a disguise for "blindly guessing."

Terrapin Station
8.4k
↪Frank Apisa


You feel that you don't know the true nature of reality.

Based on this, you're figuring that I feel the same way.

Why? — Terrapin Station

You do have trouble quoting what people actually say...and want to substitute your own words for theirs...and then argue against your words.

I did NOT say I feel that I don't know...

I said, "I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence."

I also noted that I make a blind guess that you do not either.

If I feel like making a blind guess...I will. I do not have to have a reason.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

I am saying that I (I am just talking about me at this point) do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I do not know what actually exists (or existed)...or what does not exist (or has not existed) in the REALITY of existence. It is big mystery to me...and I am not disposed to make guesses about most of it.

It is my blind guess that you do not know that either. — Frank Apisa


Right, so why do you think that if you feel that you don't know, then no one else does either? — Terrapin Station

I said it was my blind guess that YOU do not know either.

If you are questioning what I said...please restate your question to reflect what I actually said.

It's a proven fact in the natural language of English that gods exist. — Daniel Cox

I am not interested if gods exist in the natural language of English.

We were discussing if gods exist.

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

Are you claiming you do know?

Gnostic Christian Bishop
153

A god can be an admired or adored person. It's a part of the English language. A natural language. — Daniel Cox — Frank Apisa


God can also be hated by those who care about morals.

That is why Christians always run away from moral discussions. They know that their moral sense has been corrupted by their beliefs. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I'm not a Christian...so you can take up your generalization with one of them.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
151
Those who default to the supernatural instead of the natural.

...ARE FOOLS. — Frank Apisa


Are we done, fool? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

So...you are the kind who would resort to misquoting.

Okay. Makes it easier to deal with you.

I'll let you know when I am through with you.

In the meantime, I'll just quote my first response to this topic:

As one gets older (I;m 82)...a thing happens that can best be stated as, "The fact that I am going to die is less troubling to me than it was when I was younger."

I don't consider it to be "happy that I am going to die (relatively soon)"...but rather that the prospect is not as unpleasant to contemplate as it once was.

My elderly aunt (9 years older than I) WANTS to die. She is not in despair, but she feels her life no longer has the kind of meaning that it had a while back...and is looking forward to release.

Not sure if I will get to that point also, but I understand her attitude.

I stand by that.

A god can be an admired or adored person. It's a part of the English language. A natural language. — Daniel Cox

Your point is???

Gnostic Christian Bishop
150
Literalist readers of myths are fools. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

People unwilling to acknowledge they do not know if gods exist or not...or unwilling to acknowledge they cannot determine which is more likely...

...ARE FOOLS.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
149

Beats me.

A better question is: Since it seems humans invented gods like Zeus, Ra, Jehovah and that crappy like...why is that used by the fools of the world to suppose no gods exist...rather than that humans are fallible when it comes to describing some things? — Frank Apisa


So if the religions are that far off the mark, it shows who the fools are.

Those who have the faith of fools have to hide behind a supernatural shield.

Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

Faith is a way to quit using, "God given" power of Reason and Logic, and cause the faithful to embrace doctrines that moral people reject.

The God of the OT says, “Come now, and let us reason together,” [Isaiah 1:18]

How can literalists reason on God when they must ignore reason and logic and discard them when turning into literalist?

Those who are literalists can only reply somewhat in the fashion that Martin Luther did.
“Faith must trample under foot all reason, sense, and understanding.”
“Reason is a whore, the greatest enemy that faith has.”

This attitude effectively kills all worthy communication that non-theists can have with theist. Faith closes their mind as it is pure idol worship.

Literalism is an evil practice that hides the true messages of myths. We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong through their faith colored glasses. Their faith also plugs their ears.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

The "fools" in my opinion...are those who insist, "There is at least one god"...

...who insist, "There are no gods"...

...or who insist they know which of those two is more likely.

They are the fools...in my opinion.

I recognize that decent, well-intentioned, intelligent people can disagree with me.

I suspect they are fools also.

Christoffer
423
↪Frank Apisa


Write a post with a better philosophical substance so I have something to work from. I can't work from answers like "bullshit". It's not that it's triggering, it's that it's fundamentally lacking relevant substance and I don't think the quality of your post is enough. You write like you were writing Facebook comments or twitter rants, not having a philosophical discussion.

If you can't raise the quality of your writing to a point where the discussion is a progression of ideas, you are merely ranting your emotional opinions. If you can't see that it's the way you write and your attitude that's the problem here, you might not have the ability for self-reflection.

I can't work out well-composed arguments from bullish attitudes and rant-like rhetoric. It's pretty much beneath me and is beneath anyone interested in proper philosophical debate manners. — Christoffer

Wow...really tough to get rid of you and your "I am better than you" attitude, Chris. Okay, in my estimation, that is a factor in your favor.

For the record, "the quality of my writing" has gotten me op ed pieces and op ed sized pieces published in major newspapers across the country...including the BIG one...The New York Times. It got me a full page MY TURN in Newsweek Magazine. ALL of which were published without so much as a single comma being changed.

So do not give me any of your "I am better than you" shit about quality of writing.

I considered your comments above to be bullshit...and I so described them. It was a shortcut...a cut-to-the-chase kind of thing.

If you want to climb down off your high horse and actually discuss it with me...do it. If, instead, you want to continue to tell me that you are not going to have a discussion with me...BY HAVING A DISCUSSION WITH ME...have a ball.

I am enjoying this as much as I would a discussion on the actual topic.

Christoffer
422

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful. — Frank Apisa


Nope, you just don't understand my argument and replies with it being bullshit instead of nuanced argumentation. Your post is not worthy of being a philosophical part of a discussion since you are not even trying to be involved in a back and forth discussion. Now you want me to say my argument doesn't hold up, as agreeing that you know better. Your arrogance and attitude have been seen across this forum and I don't feel there's any reason to involve myself in a discussion with someone at your level. Return with better manners and better philosophical respect and I may entertain having a discussion, until then, I cannot value your post as a relevant counter-point to what I wrote. — Christoffer

Chris...get under control. Don't let comments like this trigger you so.

If you want to discuss some of these issues with me...discuss. If you want to suppose you are above discussing matters of this sort with me because I am beneath you in some way...

...fine with me. I accept that is the way you feel.

Just stop discussing.

Don't keep posting comments about stopping!

Terrapin Station
8.4k

I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither do you. — Frank Apisa


Are you talking about our mental content here, re dispositions, etc.? — Terrapin Station

I am saying that I (I am just talking about me at this point) do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence. I do not know what actually exists (or existed)...or what does not exist (or has not existed) in the REALITY of existence. It is big mystery to me...and I am not disposed to make guesses about most of it.

It is my blind guess that you do not know that either.

I should have included that qualification.

My bad. I apologize.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
148

Perhaps significant that you spelled "out loud" incorrectly. — Frank Apisa


I am French buddy and I can screw up in 3 languages.Only those who seek cheap points remark on such minute errors. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Hey...you screwed up. No big deal. I just thought it was funny, because I disagreed with the sentiment you were attempting to convey.

If a fool want to think there is a god by faith alone, then he has faith without facts and is truly a fool. — Gnostic

If a person wants to guess there is a god...or to guess there are no gods...he/she is not a fool. One does not become a fool because one makes a guess.

That, essentially is what a "belief" in this context is...a guess.

The wise go with reality and not some imaginary god, who just happens to be a genocidal son murdering prick of a god. — Gnostic

Is that what you think...that you are...wise?

Okay...I enjoy a laugh.

If fools are going to make up a god, can you tell us why they choose to create such a vile prick of a god? — Gnostic

Beats me.

A better question is: Since it seems humans invented gods like Zeus, Ra, Jehovah and that crappy like...why is that used by the fools of the world to suppose no gods exist...rather than that humans are fallible when it comes to describing some things?

Christoffer
421

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level. — Frank Apisa


Or you could have better manners and phrase your arguments better so that I could care to value your opinion. Right now, valuing your argument relevant gets lost whenever I see "bullshit" as an answer. So I'll rather wait for other better-mannered people to discuss with and not waste my time on someone who's level of engagement starts with "bullshit". — Christoffer

You could simply have written, "I don't think my arguments would hold water against you, Frank."

It would have been more concise...and more truthful.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
147

Terrapin Station
8.4k

A fool says in his heart, there is no God; -- a wise man says it out laud.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Perhaps significant that you spelled "out loud" incorrectly.

Guessing there are no gods is not foolish...but then again, guessing there is at least one god is not foolish either.

They are simply guesses.

If someone wants to pretend either is more than just a guess...

...that person is being foolish.

Christoffer
417

Do you realize that is all bullshit? — Frank Apisa


To you perhaps — Christoffer

To anyone thinking!

It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it. — Frank Apisa


How do you conclude that to be the true concept of atheism? — Christopher

I told you.

Because I ask people who use the word as a descriptor...and those are some of the answers I've gotten.

For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit. — Frank Apisa


You have a fundamentally limited understanding of what I actually wrote, so that's probably the reason your intellectual level is to just spam "bullshit". If that's the level of intellectual rhetoric and discussion you want to exist on, I think it's easy to deduce which is intellectually superior.

More bullshit.

Just sayin

I would welcome a more philosophical response than "bullshit", if you demand not to be intellectually inferior, as per your own way of defining things.

I couldn't care less what you'd "welcome."

I am saying that YOUR assertion that...

...That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief...

...is not worth more respect than to be called "bullshit."

If you want to just take that thought and reword it, we'll have a go at a discussion on a higher level.

Terrapin Station
8.4k

Okay...so you are a "believer."

It may be a correct guess. If I were to "hope" on the matter (I seldom do)...it is what I hope is the truth. — Frank Apisa




No maybe or hoping about it, but who knows the reason you have some doubts. You don't really seem to be sharing the source of your doubts. — Terrapin Station

Not sure what you mean that I am not sharing the source of my doubts. I have offered them several times...in several different places and threads.

I have absolutely no idea of the true nature of the REALITY of existence. Neither do you.

You can make a blind guess about its nature...about what is contained in it...and what does not exist...but it is nothing but a blind guess.

I choose not to do that...although I will if asked.

What on Earth is unreasonable about:

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.

Christoffer
413
↪Maureen


Atheism is neither agnostic or certain of the non-existence of God. That's the traditional fundamental misunderstanding of atheism. The atheistic approach is simply that without proof or data in support of any claim, that claim shouldn't be made as a fundamental belief. So the notion that God "could exist" becomes irrelevant since it's not even a concept worth entertaining as there is nothing pointing to such an explanation for anything. — Christoffer

Do you realize that is all bullshit?

There is no "fundamental misunderstanding" of atheism...because there is no actual understanding of atheism. It means whatever a person wants it to mean when using it.

Some atheists mean it to denote "an assertion that no gods exist."

Some atheist mean it to denote "a belief that no gods exist."

Some atheists mean it to denote "a belief or assertion that it is more LIKELY that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

Some atheists mean it to denote "simply a lack of belief that gods exist."

Some atheists mean it to denote the bullshit you just posted.

It is a worthless word...as a descriptor. That is why I often ask people claiming atheism...what they mean.

There are people who have "beliefs" (and who discuss at length) whether or not a particular team will win the next SuperBowl...or the next World's Cup.

If that is a reasonable topic for discussion...certainly the topic of whether or not gods exist is a reasonable topic for discussion. For people who use atheist as a descriptor to claim some sort of intellectual superiority to people who use agnostic (for instance) because the topic is not worth discussing...or that it is a useless topic...is bullshit.

Just sayin'!

Terrapin Station
8.4k

What do you mean when you say you are an "atheist," Terrapin?

Are you expressing a "belief" or guess that there are no gods...or are you simply saying you lack a "belief" that any gods exist?

If the latter, to you also lack a "belief" that no gods exist? Are you generally lacking a belief in whether gods exist or do not exist? — Frank Apisa


I believe/I'm asserting the fact that no gods exist. — Terrapin Station

Okay...so you are a "believer."

It may be a correct guess. If I were to "hope" on the matter (I seldom do)...it is what I hope is the truth.

Devans99
1.4k

2) There is no way in Hell I know that YOU think...or that therefore you are. — Frank Apisa


You can tell by reading this sentence that it is produced by an entity other than your own conscious mind. So there is at least one entity in additional to yourself. So that eliminates solipsism. — Devans99

It does not...and...it does not.

It's is true that other entity could be Descartes's evil demon (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_demon). I am not quite sure how to get around that. Perhaps making two people speak at the same time - then it would be apparent that there are two other entities; at least one of which is not the evil demon.

Everything may be just me.

I cannot be sure of you...or anyone else.

What I see as "you" posting here...may be me doing both. That I do not know.

Descarte's thing was, "I think therefore I am"...not..."I think therefore I am and because I see what appears to be 'others' does not mean I know that they are."

Devans99
1.4k
René Descartes timeless axiom is claimed to be the basis for secure or absolute knowledge - anything deduced from the axiom can be regarded as knowledge with absolute certainty:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito,_ergo_sum

Descartes used his axiom to prove the existence of God via an ontological argument (similar to St Anselm’s). Not many people buy his proof, but it is such a good axiom, it seems a pity to waste it. Descartes project was to place all of knowledge on a firm footing.

I wonder what else we can deduce from it?

Here is a start:

1. I think therefore I am

2. You think therefore you are. Any conservation with another person reveals they have a different active train of thought and a different memory. So there is at least one other entity apart from me

3. We both share common experiences. Things in my mind are also in the other entities mind. So some things have some existence outside my own mind.

4. Events in my mind proceed in a linear sequence so something called ‘time’ exists

5. To exist something must have a start, so time must have a start — Devans99

Jesus H. Christ.

Anyway...

1) I think, therefore I suppose I am.

2) There is no way in Hell I know that YOU think...or that therefore you are.

Where did all the rest of that stuff come from?

Devans99
1.4k

If you are acknowledging that a thing can EXIST without a cause...

...you have defeated your own argument. — Frank Apisa


It is very simple:

- things in time all need a cause
- timeless things (IE the first cause) don't need a cause

Then everything adds up; everything has a cause except the one thing that does not need a cause and there are no (impossible) infinite regresses. It's the only way things can be - I do not believe a valid counter argument is possible - and none have been forthcoming - so maybe I should consider the matter settled and move onto other things. — Devans99

Pontification.

Ya gotta get away from it.

Devans99
1.4k

f you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause. — Frank Apisa


The question I posed was:

Then Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99

This is what I read up above:

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one.

The first cause does not exist in time so is not subject to causality so does not need a previous cause. IE I'm asking how anything else but the first cause could exist (if the first cause did not).

Devans...what your are doing is pontificating...and you are not doing an especially good job of it.

If there is a "first cause"....whatever it is...it EXISTS.

If it had no cause...then it EXISTS without a prior cause.

If you are acknowledging that a thing can EXIST without a cause...

...you have defeated your own argument.

People have dealt with that "in time" nonsense. Get rid of it.

A suggestion, if I may...the Nixon solution. Nixon declared victory in Vietnam...and got out.

Declare victory on this...and move on to something else.

Properly done...you can claim to have solved all the problems of the world.

Devans99
1.4k

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE — Frank Apisa


Eh? Showing something can exist without a first cause (which is impossible BTW) is not a prerequisite for showing there is a first cause. You are confusing me. — Devans99

If you are positing a "first cause"...whatever it happens to be today (we all know it is going to end up being this god you guess exists)...then that is something that exists without a previous cause.

You are not confused, Devans...you are unwilling to acknowledge that your argument is a nothing-burger.

Devans99
1.4k

Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause! — Pattern-chaser


I, with obviously lots of help from Thomas Aquinas, have done that here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1

The point I'm making is there are lots of ways to show there must be a first cause and no ways to show anything could exist without one. I would draw a cast iron conclusion from that - there must be a first cause. — Devans99

YOU CANNOT SHOW A "FIRST CAUSE" WITHOUT SHOWING SOMETHING THAT CAN EXIST WITHOUT ONE.

When are you going to finally grok that?

Your argument disproves ITSELF.

Pattern-chaser
939

Demonstrate how anything in time can exist without a first cause please — Devans99


Demonstrate how anything can exist with a (first) cause!

The thing is we don't understand this stuff. We're trading theories, none of which can be substantiated. There is no evidence. No proof; no disproof. Just guesswork and wishful thinking. That's life! :smile: — Pattern-chaser

BINGO

Pattern-chaser
934

What does your response mean, PC?

Are you saying you "believe" in the "supernatural?"

If so...are you saying that you are inferring knowledge...or is it just a general feeling or guess...that something other than what is a part of nature...exists? — Frank Apisa


I'm saying that I'm a believer (but not a Christian ;)). And before that, I was claiming not to deny or believe-against the evidence. OK? :smile: A guess? In formal terms, yes, that's exactly what it is. :wink: — Pattern-chaser

Okay...just wasn't sure of your point.

I went from moderate religious...to zealous religious...to agnostic. Moderate up to age 17 - 18...zealous while in military service (peacetime)...and became agnostic about at age 21 - 25. Been that way ever since.

Terrapin Station
8.4k
I'm an atheist.

I'd rather be immortal, as long as I could be relatively young/healthy as an immortal. — Terrapin Station

What do you mean when you say you are an "atheist," Terrapin?

Are you expressing a "belief" or guess that there are no gods...or are you simply saying you lack a "belief" that any gods exist?

If the latter, to you also lack a "belief" that no gods exist? Are you generally lacking a belief in whether gods exist or do not exist?