Maureen
23

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

Those are the first words of my position on the issue. I have no idea of what you are talking about, Maureen.

HERE IS MY POSITION:

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


Exactly, which is why my point is and has always been to just say that you don't know if God(s) exist or not and leave it at that. Giving any reasons why this is the case is to suggest that those reason(s) is the basis for why you don't know if God(s) exist, which is entirely unnecessary since no one knows if God(s) exists or not. You or anyone else could simply say: "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and it would be exactly the same as saying "I don't know if God(s) exist or not," and then giving reason(s) for this. Whether you do or do not give reasons for it, the fact will still always be that you, nor anyone else knows if God(s) exist. I won't even bother to explain again why it is that no one knows if God(s) exist, because I feel like it would be hypocritical of what I just said, not to mention monotonous and repetitious. — Maureen

I responded to your question. I did it as courteously as possible. And in return, I get a lot of shit in return.

I am not here for any grief from you.

If you do not like what I say...or the way I say it...don't read my comments.

Either that...or go fuck yourself.

The choice is yours. No need to tell me why you chose whatever you choose.

RBS
32
↪Frank Apisa
Dude,,,,,,there is nothing in your writings or ideas that makes sense, you are not standing on your own theories, do you think with your broken and unfinished theories you can think of what is philosophy or do you think you are actually doing philosophy.....

You are just rephrasing your one word over and over and that's what is happening with most of the "..k" comments people. I thought you guys will be smart but in reality you guys are just a memory drive of unmeaning-full sentences....

I was thinking and hoping that this forum will be somewhat useful, but now am seeing that most of us here are just doing gibberish and doesn't make any sense.

Good luck with what you are after and what you will learn, for me its enough.... — RBS

Okay.

Careful of the door.

Pattern-chaser
928

We do not know. I do not know ... and you do not know. — Frank Apisa


IMO, all of us philosophers (and all of us scientists too) should repeat this to ourselves at least once a day. :up: :smile:

I can live with doubt and uncertainty and not knowing. I think it is much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers that might be wrong. If we will only allow that, as we progress, we remain unsure, we will leave opportunities for alternatives. We will not become enthusiastic for the fact, the knowledge, the absolute truth of the day, but remain always uncertain … In order to make progress, one must leave the door to the unknown ajar. — Richard P. Feynman


#ThoughtForTheDay — Pattern-chaser

Thank you.

Unfortunately, for many "I do not know" is something that can never be said or acknowledged.

Good quote from Feynman...a complicated man, but a guy filled with great quotes.

— Devans99

The "waffle" is all yours, Devans.

You have decided to build a case that YOUR GOD exists...and have pretended to be arguing something else. Your arguments are all back door nonsense...and I suspect you know it.

When people point out the the flaws in your arguments...you simply dismiss them and then claim that no one has pointed out any flaws.

Nothing wrong with you guessing YOUR GOD exists...nor even that YOU have proved that YOUR GOD must exist...that YOUR GOD of necessity must exist. Nothing wrong with you thinking you have solved a problem that the finest minds that have ever existed on this planet have not been able to solve.

But you should be more truthful with yourself. Lying to yourself never really works.

YOUR GOD or someone else's gods MAY EXIST. No gods...may also be the reality.

We do not know.

I do not know...and you do not know.

Maureen
22
↪Frank Apisa
I am not talking about beliefs. You and anyone else can believe whatever the hell you want. I can believe that there is an island full of pink unicorns in the middle of the south pacific, but I do not know if there is an island like this. I have read what you said about not seeing any evidence that there needs to be a God(s) or that the presence of a God(s) would necessarily make a difference, but none of that changes the fact that nobody knows if God(s) exist, nor does the fact that you do not accept or deny God(s) existence. To not accept or deny that God(s) exist based on the reasons that you gave is to say that you are using those reasons as the basis for your stance, rather than admitting that you don't know if God(s) exists, plain and simple. You can obviously give reasons for why you don't know if God(s) exist, but this will not change the concept. — Maureen

I DO NOT KNOW IF GODS EXIST OR NOT.

Those are the first words of my position on the issue. I have no idea of what you are talking about, Maureen.

HERE IS MY POSITION:

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.

Fooloso4
367
Bye bye Frankie. Some day you may grow up and realize that you are only playing at doing philosophy, but given your age, I doubt it. I think you are probably capable of stating things in a clear and simple way, but you prefer to deal in ambiguities. When I asked you what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? Your answer was:

Because that was the point I was making. — Frank Apisa


The point you were making is that you can phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding?

One thing that is of value in Plato's dialogues is what it reveals about the character of Socrates' interlocutors. Other noted philosophers have also pointed to the importance of character. Wittgenstein said that working in philosophy is working on one's self. You have a lot of work to do, but I suspect you will only continue to play games intended to mislead and think that your playing at philosophy is doing philosophy.

I am not going to guess at your motivation, but you will find that the more you play games, the less interested people will be in having a conversation with you. Your loss. There are some members here who know quite a bit about philosophy, but given your behavior I doubt that any of them will bother with you for long. — Fooloso4

I was completely clear...you missed it. Now...you are unable to acknowledge you did.

So be it.

Much of your contribution here helps understand what Maureen was asking with her OP.

Fooloso4
365

But the statement "I do not believe any gods exist" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa


That is not the statement I said was ambiguous. The statement in question is: "I do not "believe" there are no gods". That statement is entirely consistent with your believing that there are gods. — Fooloso4

That is absolute bullshit.

Here is what I actually said:

I disagree with lots of what you said here, but I am going to attack our disagreement in a different way.

I am going to agree with something you said; add something to it; and then ask if you are of the same mind on what I added.

Regarding gods, you wrote: "But I do not believe they do exist."

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa

NOW...how the hell do you get to any ambiguity considering the entire of that commentary?

YOU DON'T!

You are playing a game. I was absolutely clear that I do not hold a "belief" that any gods exist...AND that I do not hold a "belief" that no gods exist.

You screwed up...because YOUR response was:

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

You just didn't get it...although I spelled it out clearly enough for a grammar school kid to get it.

JohnLocke
10
If the universe is infinite, that would mean there is an infinite number of 'me' out there. — JohnLocke

That does not necessarily follow.

I am not saying it is wrong...but you assert it as a conclusion.

Let's hear the P1 and P2 that gets you to:

Therefore there is an infinite number of "me" out there.

RBS
16
↪Frank Apisa
I appreciate your straight forwardness and I am with you on your "belief" that the existence of a god (s) cannot be thrown away, meaning there is something (s) or someone (s) that is in control of what is out of the human control and reach? agree?? — RBS

Disagree.

Obviously I do not know if any gods exist or not.

I prefer not to guess one way or the other.

I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible...

...and I see no reason to suppose the existence of a GOD or gods is necessary.

There may be at least one god...there may be none.

If forced to make a guess (which for me would be a blind guess)...I would toss Mr. Coin...the coin my wife and I use to make decisions in our football pools when we are undecided.

S
9.4k

You are assuming a start. — Frank Apisa


Ah, yes. But he has an argument against an infinite regress. An argument which resembles ancient logic which leads to absurd conclusions. Except that his logic only gets partway through the breakdown and then just, again, simply assumes a start, instead of continuing on to infinity. So it is actually far worse, because although this ancient logic is unsound, it is at least valid, whereas his logic makes an invalid logical leap to his desired conclusion. — S

You've hit the nail on the head with the "desired conclusion"...which has been the fly in the ointment from the very beginning. Way back, I (and others, including you, I think) have question Devans' motives for all this supposed reasoning.

My conclusion was that he was aiming at a backdoor "proof" of the existence of a god he had in mind...most likely the same god Aquinas aimed for.

The "logic" he proposes to defend his thesis IS NOT logic. It is a path toward where he is determined to go.

His assumption of a start to "whatever" is necessary for him to then demand a first mover or first cause.

Bottom line: He is going to ask us to pick any point on the circle and see where it leads us.

— RBS

Screw the "belief" stuff. If a person is going to make an assertion about whether gods exist or not...the person should have the spine to acknowledge that the assertion is a guess...and "the guess" should not be disguised using the word "belief."

Anyway...your suggestion is reasonable and makes sense.

SO...here is a single comment all by itself"

I do not "believe" there are no gods.

That is a simple sentence...and says a specific thing. It says that I do not hold a "belief" that no gods exist. It does not say anything about any other "beliefs" I might have or not have.

Go with it.

Devans99
1.3k

Please tell me how something can start by itself? — Devans99

You are assuming a start.

Sorta like someone saying, "How can there be a creation without a creator?"

The moment you postulate a "first cause"...you essentially are conceding that somethings have no cause...but "always were."

The, stubbornly, seemingly stone-headedly...you insist that the universe cannot be that thing.

It, according to the Book of Devans...had to have a start...which means that it had to have a first cause.

If you would open your mind...you would see that as absolute blather.

Fooloso4
364

There is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe gods exist" and there is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe there are no gods."

Both are truthful. — Frank Apisa


You need to look up the definition of ambiguity. The fact that a statement is truthful does not mean it is not ambiguous. It I say: "I do not believe it is not going to rain", that is a truthful statement if I do not believe it is not going to rain. The question is, what do I mean when I say this? If I believed that it was going to rain that would be consistent with the statement. If I meant I have no belief one way or the other that too would be consistent with the statement. So, how do you know on the basis of the statement which one I meant? — Fooloso4

Of course a thing can be truthful AND ambiguous. But the statement "I do not believe any gods exist" IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.

There ARE people who do "believe" that at least one god exists.

I am not one of them.

The statement, "I do not believe no gods exist.

I am not one of them.

I do not "believe" any gods exist...AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

If you cannot get that...you are no philosopher...or even close to being one.

If you are too stupid to see the point I was making — Frank Apisa


Of course I saw the point! I do not think it helpful to call people stupid but if I did I would say that you are the one who is stupid for your inability to see why your initial statement was ambiguous. Not believing X does not mean that you believe not-X, but that could be what you meant. I would also call you stupid for not understanding that meaning involves a great deal more than making a true statement. — Fool

There was absolutely nothing ambiguous about my comments...except to someone who is not particularly bright.

A member sent me this privately:

'Donald Davidson argues that language competence must not simply involve learning a set meaning for each word, and then rigidly applying those semantic rules to decode other people's utterances. Rather, he says, people must also be continually making use of other contextual information to interpret the meaning of utterances, and then modifying their understanding of each word's meaning based on those interpretations.'


When you provided further context, namely that you hold no beliefs about gods, then and only then was your statement no longer ambiguous as to what you meant. — Fool

Bullshit.

Neither was ambiguous at any point. YOU were mistaking the comment "I do not believe X"...to mean "I believe not-X"

But, you apparently are not very bright. You thought they were contradictory.

There is NO WAY they are contradictory.

If you are too stupid to see the point I was making...or why I was making it...go talk with someone about movies or TV programs, because these kinds of discussions are beyond you. — Frank Apisa


You know nothing about my educational level or training. There are several reasons why I do not make it known, but one is that it is a good source of amusement as some with little or no training in philosophy draw conclusions about me that only demonstrate their lack of education.

If you see my statements as contradictory...which you said you did...your "educational level or training" is inadequate.

My opinion is that if a person wants to end his/her life...he/she should be able to do so without the mess that accompanies putting a gun into one's mouth and blowing a hole through one's head.

YES...one should have the right to die...and to choose to die at a particular time and place.

Just my opinion.

One last thing, Christian...

...and this is "off-topic" also...

...you sound like a sock puppet for Devans.

Are you?

christian2017
154
I noticed through out this forum topic that accusations were made in the OP that were never clarified on certain concepts. The 4th post down is an example of this. The poster of the 4th post F.A. said things were stated but infact they were never stated in this forum topic. The OP started a new thread because he/she had new insights new ideas. Some of your are being trolls today. — christian2017

I certainly am not being a troll.

The conversation is a continuation of several conversations occurring simultaneously. Allusions were made...I responded to them.

Devans knew what he was doing. He is not trolling...nor am I.

There was no "new insight"...there was a very old notion being peddled...and I was not buying.

Maureen
21
Update: I am using a touchscreen laptop and the mouse pad no longer works properly which is inhibiting my ability to quote texts. I know that this is possible, but I just wanted to explain why I haven't done it or haven't been doing it.

With that said, ↪Frank Apisa
You are assuming that any Gods exist. It would not matter which God or Gods anyone was referring to in a conversation unless some Gods or one particular God exists among the one(s) being referenced. But as I said before, no one knows if any God(s) do or do not exist. If no one had ever seen elephants before or knew about them and they existed but only lived on another planet, then they would exist but you would not know that they exist. I don't even know that there would be any theories about their existence, it would more than likely simply be that they exist and you don't know it. This example is empirically no different than God(s) since no one has seen God(s) and therefore theoretically no one knows if He or they exist. But as in the example that I gave, God(s) could exist and we just are not aware of it for whatever reasons, just as elephants could theoretically be confined to another planet and we might not know that they exist as a result. With that said, I am particularly irritated by the idea that anyone INSISTS that God(s) absolutely does or does not exist, when as I have just explained NOBODY knows this. It seems as if there are so many people on this forum and elsewhere who cannot think or understand that you don't know whether God exists, or either you just refuse to admit this. It's one thing not to admit that God(s) does or does not exist, but please at least accept that you DO NOT KNOW either way. I find it hilarious that we have spent 11 pages arguing this simply because people refuse to accept the initial point that I made. — Maureen

I absolutely, positively DO NOT KNOW if any gods exist.

I have said that many times already.

Here is my position with regard to gods (of any sort):

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.

I have posted this many times already.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
A lot of words but not even a single counter argument :( — Devans99

You've gotten all the counter arguments you need from people MUCH more intelligent than I. And you have simply dismissed them out-of-hand.

My comment to you is not based on counter arguments. It is something more basic:

I ask you to consider why you suppose YOU have done what the greatest minds that have ever lived on planet Earth have been unable to do...

...and why you suppose it is so easy to see.

Why do you SUPPOSE that is?

Why could someone like Albert Einstein not see it?

Why could someone like Stephen Hawking not see it?

Why could someone like Richard Feynman not see it?

Why could someone like Carl Sagan not see it?

You suppose you can not only see it...but that it is basic...and that it can be shown to be so in just a hsort paragraph.

Devans99
1.2k

People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them — Frank Apisa


I do not dismiss them; I read each one, think about it and post a valid counter-counter argument. Or is someone comes up with a valid counter argument, I acknowledge it and stop posting about that particular idea. — Devans99

The crux of your over-all argument has been logically rebutted by several people...and YOU DO simply dismiss them.

You may not be able to see that...but it is so.

Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause. — Frank Apisa


I spent a lot of time justifying the existence of the first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1). No-one has come up with any valid counter arguments. So I have done more than 'posit' a first cause; I have shown there must be a first cause - how can anything exist without a first cause? — Devans

Your argument is nonsense...a rehashing of the argument of Aquinas...and the argument of Aquinas was nonsense also.

You have a blind spot about this...and I suspect it has to do with a desire to show that a GOD must exist.

Fact is...a GOD...or gods...MAY exist...or may not.

There is no need for any gods (your supposed need is manufactured and gratuitous to your ends. By the same token, there is no reason to suppose no gods can exist.

On the Internet we hear arguments from advocates of both camps...and attempts to get them to see the flaws in their arguments are met with laughable denial.

Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start. — Frank Apisa


No-one has come up with a valid counter argument. And it makes sense. The Big Bang sure looks like a start of time. Entropy is too low for there not to be a start of time.

THINK ABOUT THAT. Actually think about it. You are making a categorical statement about something YOU ought not to be making such a statement. YOU are pontificating.

Fooloso4
357

If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa


But that is not what you said. You did not say you do not have a belief that 'X' you said I do not "believe" 'X'.

If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa


Again, that is not what you said. When you say that you do not believe 'X' that does not mean that you have no belief about 'X'. As you said, precise language is a must.

You agreed that it was AMBIGUOUS when I used rain in place of gods. Or when you say "Okay" you are simply being non-committal? AMBIGUOUS?

I strive to express myself simply and clearly. I learned this from "The Elements of Style" many years ago. although it took me many years to put it into practice. Given what you have said about yourself, I think it likely that you too have come across this idea. But evidently you do not recognize its value. Why else would you say something like "I do not believe 'X'" when you mean "I hold to no beliefs regarding 'X'" in the context of this discussion?
— Fooloso4

Apparently you are not able to acknowledge that saying "I do not believe "X"...IS NOT the same as saying "I believe not-X."

That is your problem.

You obviously are not equipped for a discussion like this.

I'll ask again: what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? — Fool

Because that was the point I was making.

I was making it here...and in another thread at the same time.

What I said was absolutely the truth.

There was no ambiguity.

But, if you are not adult enough to acknowledge that...no problem. In fact, the fact that you are having that difficulty is a part of the answer to the OP.

Devans99
1.2k

Space doesn't occur without time — Terrapin Station


Exactly. I can show time has a start (see https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1). So space does not exist 'before' time was created. So the creator of both space and time must be spaceless and timeless. — Devans99

No, Devans...you cannot.

Neither could Einstein, Hawking, Sagan, Feynman...or the many, many others who pondered this problem.

Your ego THINKS you can show time has a start.

Devans99
1.2k

Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

Care to expand?
— Devans
At my age...best not to. — Frank Apisa


Just typical. Everyone says there are flaws but won't say what they are or provide a link to them. I honestly would not post busted arguments; what on earth is there to gain by doing that? — Devans99

People have posted them time after time. You simply dismiss them.

I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause.
— Devans

Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example. — Frank Apisa


My first cause I suppose was sexual intercourse of my parents. Everything has a cause apart from the timeless first cause surely? — Devans

Obviously from the Book of Devans. BUT you never cite the chapter and verse.

God??? — Frank Apisa


"Some religions describe God without reference to gender, while others or their translations use sex-specific terminology. Judaism attributes only a grammatical gender to God, using terms such as "Him" or "Father" for convenience."

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

So the convention of using 'him' to refer to God stems from the Judaic tradition I grant you.

Once you posit a first cause...you already defeat your need for a first cause.

But...like I said, you are stone-headed.

That can be a good quality.

Devans99
1.2k

Since you are not talking about "a god"...but rather about "God"...and referring to it as "he"...I will make the assumption I made, because it almost certainly is that god — Frank Apisa


Seriously, I am not religious. — Devans99

Okay. But you are stone-headed...and that is much worse.

If you are suggesting you can make arguments for that god here and that I cannot respond...I have a suggestion for that suggestion.

Do you want to hear it or are you pretty sure you know what my suggestion would be? — Frank Apisa


I would like to hear your suggestion — Devans

My suggestion is for you to shove YOUR suggestion to where the sun never shines.

(and any counter arguments you can make against God). — Devans

God?

That god is so obviously mythological...no arguments are really needed.

If you want to think a god made the Earth...placed it in orbit around a star...placed that star in a galaxy with 250 billion other stars...and placed that galaxy in among hundreds of billions of other galaxies...

...and still cares about what some guys does with his own dick...

...be my guest.

If that does not seem absurd to you...what could I say?

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence for what may not exist...a tortured bit of logic...think it. — Frank Apisa


Well you could for example show the universe was not created or show there was no first cause; both would be equivalent to disproving God's existence.

Using your methodology of debate...I would just declare it to be so and refuse to accept any arguments that show such a declaration to be absurd.

Devans99
1.2k

Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting. — Frank Apisa


No-one has pointed out any flaws. — Devans99

Several of us have pointed out the flaws.

Care to expand? — Devans

At my age...best not to.

I don't see for example how anything can logically exist without a first cause. — Devans

Yes you do. Your "first cause" for example.

I would just love to debate some of this stuff with people but no-one comes up with any counter arguments. — Devans

You honestly do not see it...do you?

You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that? — Frank Apisa


I am using God as an abbreviation of 'timeless first cause' — Devans

If you mean a "timeless first cause"...use that.

And why do you refer to it as "he?" — Frank Apisa


It is conventional to refer to God as a he. — Devans

Nobody uses "he" to denote a timeless first cause...which is what you say you mean.

God has no sex, is not the product of bi-sexual reproduction, so it is just a convention that people use.

God???

Devans99
1.2k

From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament. — Frank Apisa


I do not know which God it is. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I know. There is an almost zero chance that any of the worlds religions are correct so it is hard to identify God with a particular Religion. Some religions have some things partially correct. For example, I believe catholics believe that God is timeless which is correct. — Devans99

Since you are not talking about "a god"...but rather about "God"...and referring to it as "he"...I will make the assumption I made, because it almost certainly is that god.

You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God — Frank Apisa


If you want to debate the existence of a first cause, best to do it here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p2 — Devans

If you are suggesting you can make arguments for that god here and that I cannot respond...I have a suggestion for that suggestion.

Do you want to hear it or are you pretty sure you know what my suggestion would be?

I have laid out all the arguments in the OP. — Devans

See my comment above.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.

You are wrong. — Frank Apisa


What empirical evidence can you give against God? My God is not omni-present BTW.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence for what may not exist...a tortured bit of logic...think it.

It appears to me that you, like all of us, do not know if any gods exist or not...and are unwilling to acknowledge that you do not know...mostly by pretending your blind guesses are not really blind, but are logical.

You are helping to answer the OP. I'll give you that.

Isaac
566

And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion. — Frank Apisa


Well, by my definition of 'fact' it would, yes, but that's not what the OP appears to be talking about. They appear to be defining 'fact' rather idiosyncraticaly as something more like proposition. By that definition, if one class were empty would be irrelevant, but if someone were to claim one class were empty, that would be an opinion, apparently.

The reason I made the comment you're responding to is really to try and break apart issues caused by definition from issues related to metaphysical commitments.

For me (and I think most of us) facts are states of affairs, they are the subject/object of propositions, not the proposition itself, so the idea that facts are opinions by this definition is basically solipsism.

If, on the other hand, the underlying metaphysical position here is one of Pyrrhonic skepticism, hen that's something I have a degree more sympathy for. — Isaac

I agree with you.

My agreement was the point of what I said.

Fooloso4
354

I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa


If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game. — Fooloso4

If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.

If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS.

You are/were dead wrong. Just man up and acknowledge it. You'll feel better about yourself.

Devans99
1.2k

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa


I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' other to their side. — Devans99

Okay. And there are some people who just never want to acknowledge not knowing something...especially in the "god" continuum.

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa

There are logical arguments for God. There are no logical arguments against God. — Devans

From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament.

You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God...although there are logical arguments for gods. AND there are logical arguments against that God...very logical...plus there are logical arguments against the idea of gods entirely.

There is empirical empirical for God. — Devans

I do not know what that means.

There is no empirical evidence against God. Hence the die is weighted.

If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.

You are wrong.

Fooloso4
353

There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

There was nothing contradictory expressed.

This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must. — Frank Apisa


If your point was to say that you hold no beliefs about gods then why not say that? Instead you expressed a belief - using a double negative. It is not a question of logic but of determining what you are trying to say. — Fooloso4

I did NOT express a "belief." I mentioned that I do not hold certain "beliefs." I was not TRYING to say something...I WAS saying something.

You, erroneously claimed I was holding two contradictory thoughts.

You were wrong.

If I say that I do not believe that it is not going to rain, that may mean I believe it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether it will rain or not. — Fool

Okay.

You play on the ambiguity but why? To what end? If you hold to the idea that precise language is a must then why use ambiguous language?

I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way.

Isaac
565

Allow me to explain the difference: an opinion is something you're entitled to, a fact is not. — whollyrolling


No one asked what the definitions of the two classes were. The claim is that one class is empty. — Isaac

And if one class IS empty...that would be a fact rather than an opinion.

It really resolves into a "This statement is false" kind of thing.

Devans99
1.2k
I argue there must be a first cause (https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p1) and for the purposes of this post, I’m assuming the first cause exists and is/was God. — Devans99

Your argument that "there must be a first cause" is terribly flawed...which was pointed out by many who considered it. I was one of those who found it...wanting.

From the first, I assumed the only reason for making such a flawed argument...was as an attempt for a backdoor "proof of the existence of a god."

I am more sure of that now, after reading this OP, then ever.

Since you are exploring whether this supposed god is material or non-material...why do you refer to it as "God"...the way you do in this following sentence, "So it is not clear whether God is material or non-material, all we can say is he is not of spacetime."

You seem to be referring to a specific individual rather than some nebulous "first cause." Why is that?

And why do you refer to it as "he?"

Just want to be sure about these things before getting involved in the discussion itself.

Devans99
1.2k
Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic.

Both Theist and Atheist standpoints challenge logic. — Devans99

I am not sure that is "returning" to the OP...but...

...IF we define agnostic as "not knowing if at least one god exists or not"...then everyone is an agnostic.

There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.

WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so?

And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way?

Banno
5k
↪Frank Apisa


Two possibilities: Gods exist; Gods do not exist.
Two attitudes: I believe that.. ; I do not believe that...

Four possibilities:
a) I believe that gods exist
b) I believe that gods do not exist
c) I do not believe that gods exist
d) I do not believe that gods do not exist.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (b) because they imply "I believe that gods exist and do not exist.

One can consistently hold (c) and (d), by not having a belief about gods.

One cannot consistently hold (a) and (c), since one is the negation of the other.

One can believe (b) and (d) by being agnostic. — Banno

I did NOT mention anything that I "believe."

I mentioned some things that I do NOT "believe."

Read my comment again...and you will see that.

S
9.3k

We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4


There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic. — S

Thank you, S.

That is something that escapes most people. Nice to see that you got it.

Fooloso4
352

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa


We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4

There were NO "beliefs" held there, Foolso.

I spoke of what I held no beliefs about.

There are people who "believe" gods exist. I am not one of them. Therefore, I do not "believe" any gods exist...which is what I said.

There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.

There was nothing contradictory expressed.

This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must.

Fooloso4
349

You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa


I do not have to concede that possibility since I have acknowledged it all along. See the distinction I made between epistemic agnosticism and pistemic atheism. Allow me to help you with that. I make no knowledge claims about the existence of gods, they may or may not exist, I do not know. But I do not believe they do exist.

If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa


I am not telling you anything about the gods. I know nothing of gods. I am telling you what I believe. It is not a guess and it is not blind. It is a matter of not finding anything that leads me to think there are gods, but that is not a guess about whether there are or not. If I were asked to guess I say that barring some further development it seems me that there are not. It woul — Fooloso4

I disagree with lots of what you said here, but I am going to attack our disagreement in a different way.

I am going to agree with something you said; add something to it; and then ask if you are of the same mind on what I added.

Regarding gods, you wrote: "But I do not believe they do exist."

I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.

AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.

Are you of that same mind?

Banno
5k
↪Frank Apisa
Sure. Worth noting.

What I find of value in considering such things is the difference between a proposition and the belief in a proposition. In logicians parlance, belief ranges over propositions.

SO "The cat is on the mat" and "It is true that the cat is on the mat" are each only true if the other is true.

In contrast, "The cat is on the mat" and "I believe that the cat is on the mat" are quite autonomous. Each can be true or false, independently of the other.

This point seems lost in so much of what is said in these forums. — Banno

Yup.

What I write next is tangential, but related.



The wording of comments in a philosophy forum should be rather exact.

Here is a thing I have raised in several fora. These are honest statements about myself...my position on a particular question:

I do not "believe" that any gods exist...

...and...

...I do not "believe" that there are no gods.

Those are NOT contradictory statements...although at first glance people will insist they contradict each other.

A second one:

I do not believe any gods exist...

...is not the same as...

...I believe there are no gods.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

I didn't. — Frank Apisa


Then why did you bring it up when I was talking about evidence? — Terrapin Station

I didn't.

Go back...quote what I said to which you are taking exception...and let's discuss that rather than what you are saying I said.

Question:

You been smoking powerful shit?

Terrapin Station
8.3k
↪Frank Apisa


Sure we're getting there. So the question again is why you were going with "There are some things that are in principle not detectable" over the other possibility. — Terrapin Station

I didn't.

We straightened out that they're both epistemic possibilities. Why are you going with one epistemic possibility over the other?

It isn't.

So...what is this all about?

Are you stalling for some reason?