Fooloso4
348

Which is to say that you make a blind guess one way or the other. — Frank Apisa


I do not make a blind guess unless I take seriously the possibility of the existence of gods. And unless I find some persuasive reason to take seriously the possibility of their existence, I find no reason to rule them in, and so, do not blindly guess about their existence any more than I make a blind guess about the existence of the monster, or any of the countless things I might imagine are possible without any reason to think that they might be actual. — Fooloso4

Well...allow me to help you with that.

I absolutely guarantee that there is the possibility of the existence of gods.

That is 100%. Cannot get any better than that.

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

But if there are gods...what makes you suppose this places an obligation on you. — Frank Apisa

Well, it is also possible that the gods do place obligations on us. — F

Yup...possible both ways.

The question I am getting at is about the significance of such possibilities. In what way does it matter that it is possible that gods exist? If I take seriously the possibility that there is a monster under the bed I might be fearful. I might not want to get in the bed or out of the bed. But if it does not change anything I do or fear then what difference does it make? If a child is fearful, what do we take seriously, the possibility of the monster or the reality of the fear? Do we act to eliminate the threat of the monster or alleviate the fear?

If you are telling me there are no gods...or that it is more likely that there are no gods, Fooloso...

...you ARE making a blind guess.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

The possibilities of both exist, Terrapin. — Frank Apisa


Yeah, that's what I said. "Both are epistemically possible."

But only one can be actualized, because they're logically contradictory. — Terrapin Station

At no point had I spoken of the REALITY.

I was talking about the possibilities.

In any case...are you going to give us some idea of what this is all about. What point you are trying to make...and how it impacts on why most people are unwilling to just say "I do not know?"

My opinion is that there are facts...and that the tree you are barking up...

...is the wrong tree.

Fooloso4
345

There is a difference between "nothing I do is predicated on their possible existence"...and "they do not exist." — Frank Apisa


Right, that is my point. I make no claims of knowledge, but still hold beliefs on the matter. — Fooloso4

Which is to say that you make a blind guess one way or the other.

My guess is that your guess is that no gods exist.

You may feel it reasonable to "not take seriously the possibility that they do exist"...BUT the unavoidable fact is that it IS possible that gods exist. — Frank Apisa


The trap one falls into is thinking that it follows from the claim that something is possible, which is to say, not impossible, that this possibility has any bearing on what one does or believes. — F

I certainly do not fall into that.

I am saying IT IS POSSIBLE gods exist...just as it is POSSIBLE that no gods do.

The notion that one it is more likely one way or the other...IS ALSO JUST BLIND GUESSWORK.

It is possible that there is a monster under my bed that has the ability to disappear whenever I look for it. It IS possible that it exists, BUT what follows from this?

Beats me.

But if there are gods...what makes you suppose this places an obligation on you.

Where does that come from?

Fooloso4
344
It does not follow from the claim that we cannot or have not determined whether gods exist that we should take seriously the possibility that they do exist. Not ruling something out does not mean we should rule it in. There are various reasons why one might want to rule it in, but if I do not find any of those reasons compelling then I have no reason why I should rule it in.

My position is epistemologically agnostic, but with regard to belief I "pistemically" atheist or "apistemic", that is, without belief in gods. I could be wrong, but I do not believe in gods and nothing I do is predicated on their possible existence. — Fooloso4

There is a difference between "nothing I do is predicated on their possible existence"...and "they do not exist."

You may feel it reasonable to "not take seriously the possibility that they do exist"...BUT the unavoidable fact is that it IS possible that gods exist.

THAT is not even in dispute...and there is no getting around that.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

Are you saying one is impossible? — Frank Apisa


Both are epistemically possible, but if one is ontologically actual, the other is ontologically impossible by virtue of being a contradiction of the other. One has to be ontologically actual. — Terrapin Station

The possibilities of both exist, Terrapin.

The POSSIBILITY of one...does not negate the POSSIBILITY of the other. In fact, the POSSIBILITY of one just about demands the POSSIBILITY of the other.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

They are not mutually exclusive...you realize? — Frank Apisa


Sure they are. — Terrapin Station

Are you saying one is impossible?

Which one is that?

These are possibilities we are talking about. No "possibility" of this sort is mutually exclusive.

If it is possible that X...that presupposes the possibility of not-X. If not, it is a certainty, not a possibility. That is intrinsic to possibility propositions. We are talking about the possibility...not the reality.

It's a simple contradiction. If there's an x that's undetectable in principle, then it can not be the case that there is no x that's undetectable in principle. Again, both are possible. — Terrapin

If one...then not the other. That is the reality.

But we are talking about the POSSIBILITY...not the reality.

Anyway...this is a side-track...uninteresting and immaterial.

You suggested that there's an x that's undetectable in principle. — Terrapin

I did no such thing. I suggested the POSSIBILITY.

You didn't suggest that there's no x that's undetectable in principle. — Terrapin

The POSSIBILITY, Terrapin. THE POSSIBILITY.

Why? Did you flip a coin?

For that?

No reason to flip a coin on that. That is a given.

Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible.

Both those things are possible.

Anyway...what is the point of all this?

They are not mutually exclusive...you realize?

Terrapin Station
8.3k

It certainly is POSSIBLE that there is an "X" that is undetectable in principle. — Frank Apisa


Sure, it's possible that there's an x undetectable in principle, and it's possible that there is no x undetectable in principle. Which one do we go with and why? — Terrapin Station

if you want to guess...guess.

If you are asking me to guess...I will flip Mr. Coin. But to what avail?

Terrapin Station
8.3k
↪Frank Apisa


So there's a distinction to be had here:

(1) X is undetectable in principle. In other words, no matter what we ever do, no matter what we ever know, we will never be able to detect x, because there's something about x that makes it inherently outside the realm of any possible interactive experience, even indirectly.

(2) We haven't detected x yet, maybe because we simply haven't yet looked in the right place, or in the right way yet, or maybe there's something we're yet to discover, but that we eventually will discover, that will enable us to detect x. — Terrapin Station

Okay...

...YES.

To both.

It certainly is POSSIBLE that there is an "X" that is undetectable in principle. In other words, no matter what we ever do, no matter what we ever know, we will never be able to detect x, because there's something about x that makes it inherently outside the realm of any possible interactive experience, even indirectly. Humanity (human beings) may cease to exist without ever having detected some "X."

AND...it certainly is POSSIBLE that there is an "X" we humans haven't detected x yet, maybe because we simply haven't yet looked in the right place, or in the right way yet, or maybe there's something we're yet to discover, but that we eventually will MAY discover, that will enable us to detect x.

At this stage of human development...POVERTY ought to be a thing of the past.

Every human on the planet should have, at a minimum, sufficient food, shelter, clothing, medical care, and opportunity for education.

All of that should be met for every human on the planet...before any of the other proceeds of work and enterprise is compensated.

The so-called Protestant work ethic is a dinosaur...and should go where the dinosaurs went.

Most people on the planet should not be part of the "work force"...especially the people who, because of lack of ability or laziness...are a detriment to productivity. Only the most productive should be allowed to work.

I hope that addresses the issues you raised.

Terrapin Station
8.3k
↪Frank Apisa


So you're not proposing something undetectable in principle? Just something we haven't detected yet? — Terrapin Station

I honestly do not know what you mean by your question, Terrapin.

Here is my position stated for (I think) the third time:

It is absurd to suppose that because humans cannot detect "X"...that "X" does not exist.

It is absurd to suppose that everything that exists...can be detected by humans.

I am not being intentionally obtuse. I just do not know what you means by "something undetectable in principle."

Devans99
1.2k

We have no idea of what exists that we still have not detected. — Frank Apisa


https://www.space.com/26078-how-many-stars-are-there.html

So there are 1*10^24 stars in the observable universe. God could be anywhere amongst them. So we can't use 'we can't find God' to categorically disprove the existence of God. — Devans99

Using "we can't find any gods" as proof that gods do not exist...

...is totally illogical.

You've offered an interesting topic for discussion.

I immediately focus on one aspect, because I see it as an imperative to decent discussions of many issues...and that aspect is the word "belief."

For the most part, in casual conversation, "I believe..." may mean a variety of things...none of which are significant. "I believe I'll go to a movie" "I believe I left the door unlocked" "I believe Shogun was a better book than King Rat....are various casual uses that are not especially significant.

"I believe in democracy" is a shortcut way of saying, "I prefer a democratic political environment to a totalitarian one."

When used in a discussion about the unknown qualities of existence or reality, however, "I believe..." most often is a way of disguising a guess.

I believe there are no gods...is a way of disguising, "It is my guess that no gods exist."

I believe at least one god exists...is a way of disguising, "It is my guess that at least one god exists."

The "I believe IN..." format almost always is a disguised guess...when used in a discussion of the unknowns I mentioned.

(The "guess" often is just an "opinion.")

Just sayin'.

May not impact on your discussion objective, but it is my opinion that it is worth mentioning.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

If you are asking me about something I wrote...quote what I wrote. I will flesh it out my words if that is what you are asking. — Frank Apisa


I'm asking you about this:

"...and YOU still come up with "If humans cannot detect it...it does not exist"...which is absurd."

How are you getting to "there are things that are undetectable in principle" — Terrapin Station

The reason I wrote that it is absurd to suppose, as you do, that if humans cannot detect it, it does not exist...

...is because the notion IS absurd.

Pluto existed long before any humans detected it; atoms existed long before any humans detected them.

We have no idea of what exists that we still have not detected.

Your paraphrasing of what I wrote...is even more absurd.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

I do not do "believing." — Frank Apisa


Yeah, you do. Everyone does. — Terrapin Station

I don't!

The word(s) you use for it are irrelevant. — Terrapin

The words are paramount.,

I makes guesses...I call them "guesses." I make suppositions...I call them "suppositions." I make estimates...I call them "estimates." I have opinions...I call them "opinions."

Some people refer to their guesses, suppositions, estimates, and opinions...as beliefs.

I do not.

They do "believing."

I don't.

So what would be the basis for the notion of some things being undetectable in principle?

If you are asking me about something I wrote...quote what I wrote. I will flesh it out my words if that is what you are asking.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

...and YOU still come up with "If humans cannot detect it...it does not exist"...which is absurd. — Frank Apisa


So, you're believing first off that some things are not going to be detectable in principle, right? — Terrapin Station

I do not do "believing."

If you are asking me if my guess is that we humans are not even close to understanding or being able to detect EVERYTHING about existence...

...YES...that is my guess.

At very least, it certainly is possible.

Do you have a guess on the issue?

Terrapin Station
8.3k
↪Frank Apisa


Well, it's not even limited to sense. At least not directly. It includes any sort of evidential detection from any instrument, too. For example, something like a spectrometer, or an oscilloscope, or a neutrino detector--any sort of instrument we can imagine. — Terrapin Station

Then change "see" to "sense, either directly or by any other sort of instrument we puny humans can imagine."

Gonna come out the same, Terrapin.

Don't you get that by now.

You could have changed "see" to "detect"...

...and YOU still come up with "If humans cannot detect it...it does not exist"...which is absurd.

We have no idea of how much human intelligence is able to detect...and it is quite possible that on a continuum with "all that exists" being one mile long...what humans are able to detect using instruments and all that crap...may be less than 1/100th of an inch.

The answer to Maureen's question apparently is: Because some people simply will not accept "I do not know" as a response.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

If you want to think that because you see no gods on your desk or on the street in front of your apartment is evidence that no gods exist...

...then it is also evidence that nothing that you are not able to see on your desk or on the street in front of your apartment is also evidence that nothing else exists. — Frank Apisa


Again, it's not just about seeing. Can we get that straight first? Let's see if we can settle anything. — Terrapin Station

Change "see" to "sense."

No problemo.

If you are still monitoring this thread, Maureen...

...I think your OP question if being answered rather strongly by Tarrapin.

Some people just CANNOT...or ARE UNWILLING...to accept "I do not know."

It seems to cause them physical and mental distress at times.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

None of that is evidence that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa


Yes it is. The only way it wouldn't be is if god is supposed to be located someplace where we haven't even checked. In lieu of specifying a location, or in a situation where god is supposed to be omnipresent, the more places we search but come up empty is the more evidence that there is no such thing as a god. — Terrapin Station

If you want to think that because you see no gods on your desk or on the street in front of your apartment is evidence that no gods exist...

...then it is also evidence that nothing that you are not able to see on your desk or on the street in front of your apartment is also evidence that nothing else exists.

You are being particularly illogical.

Why is that?

There would need to be some plausible reason why it's not detectable. What's the plausible reason? — Terrapin

Because humans are not able to "detect" everything that exists?

It certainly appears we humans are not able to "detect" everything that exists.

That doesn't just go for gods, it goes for everything. — Terrapin

Exactly.

There's no reason to believe that anything exists if there's no evidence for it, and there's reason to believe that it doesn't exist if searches do not turn it up. We'd need a plausible reason to believe that something isn't detectable in order to believe that. — Terrapin

I do not do "believing."

Anyway...if you want to blindly guess that no gods exist...you are free to do so. I will defend your right to do so. If you are going to pretend there is some logical reason for doing so...I am going to laugh at it.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

YOU are the one claiming there is evidence that there are no gods — Frank Apisa


Correct. There is evidence that there are no gods. Everywhere we check--no evidence of any gods. That's evidence that there are none. That's evidence that something doesn't exist. You suggested that maybe we're looking in the wrong place. So I'm asking you to suggest where the right place to look might be. — Terrapin Station

None of that is evidence that no gods exist.

The fact that no human can "check" and find something is NOT evidence that a thing does not exist. It is merely evidence that we humans cannot detect it.

I am still looking for you to produce any evidence that gods do not exist.

(HINT: I doubt there is ANY evidence that gods do not exist. I have grappled with this problem from both sides...and I have NEVER encountered any unambiguous evidence that no gods exist. For the record, I have NEVER encountered any unambiguous evidence that any gods DO exist either. (NOTE: Obviously, IF a creator god exists, EVERYTHING is evidence that the god exists...but equally obviously, it is FAR from unambiguous.)

So...I am still waiting. Give me a single piece of evidence that no gods exist. Let's discuss it.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

From what I gather...you are suggesting that since you cannot see any gods on on your desk, on the sidewalk in front of your apartment... — Frank Apisa


Not seeing, per se. No evidence of them.

Ideas aren't located on desks. They're brain phenomena. There's plenty of evidence that they're brain phenomena.

Maybe you'd want to suggest an alternate place to look for evidence of god phenomena? — Terrapin Station

YOU are the one claiming there is evidence that there are no gods.

So far, I have not seen any. You have not offered any evidence that there are no gods for consideration...only that you cannot see any on your desk or on the sidewalk in front of your apartment.

Please...just offer some of that evidence you claim exists that there are no gods.

Terrapin Station
8.3k

I asked you to furnish the single most important piece of evidence that shows that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa


Importance is subjective. I don't know what you're going to consider more important on this end.

I don't consider any piece of evidence more important than any other for this. I look on my desk. There are no gods there. I look on the sidewalk in front of my apartment. No gods there. None on the moon, either. Etc. All of equal importance to me. — Terrapin Station

From what I gather...you are suggesting that since you cannot see any gods on on your desk, on the sidewalk in front of your apartment...

...that is evidence that gods do not exist.

Okay.

Tell me if you see an "idea" on your desk...or on the sidewalk in front of your apartment.

If not...are you saying that is evidence that ideas do not exist. Or are you able to see that it is ONLY evidence that you cannot see an idea on your desk or on the sidewalk in front of your apartment.

Tell me if you see any sentient beings from any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol on your desk or on the sidewalk in front of your apartment.

If not...are you saying that is evidence that there are no sentient beings from any of those planets? Or are you able to see that it is ONLY evidence that you cannot see any sentient beings from any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol on your desk or on the sidewalk in front of your apartment.

S
9.2k

Then get "the world" to tell me what can and cannot exist. — Frank Apisa


We can in some cases determine with logic what can and cannot exist. That which the existence of which would imply a contradiction cannot exist. So that rules out a number of gods from the enquiry. — S

S...respectfully as possible...I think it is best we not engage in any further discussions.

Options
Terrapin Station
8.2k

Okay, if nothing is nonphysical...then any gods that exist are nonphysical also. But, like ideas, you cannot put a tie on 'em. — Frank Apisa


I'm assuming you meant "Then any gods that exist are physical." — Terrapin Station

Don't assume.

I said what I meant to say.

That's fine. As I said above: "[If we're talking about something that only has physical aspects, then] I don't know what we'd be talking about. [This] alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it." The first thing I'd want specified is where whatever we're talking about is supposed to be located.

If you are of the opinion that an IDEA is NOT nonphysical...then an entity god could be nonphysical. If a translation of your "nothing is nonphysical" is that the only things that are nonphysical are things that do not exist...then you are saying that ideas do not exist.

Your arguments here are absurd.

In any case, we can move on to something less in the area of YOU defining things.

You said, "In other words, in the case of a god, all the evidence we have so far shows no god to exist."

I asked you to furnish the single most important piece of evidence that shows that no gods exist.

Let's go there.

Isaac
534

There have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented to my points in the OP. — Devans99


For fuck's sake. You think there have been no substantive, valid, counter arguments presented.

Other people think their counter arguments are substantive and valid. — Isaac

My guess is that Devans will offer some variation on:

Go back to a different spot on the circle...and see where it leads.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

Are you saying that ideas do not exist? — Frank Apisa


They're not nonphysical. Nothing is. — Terrapin Station

Okay, if nothing is nonphysical...then any gods that exist are nonphysical also. But, like ideas, you cannot put a tie on 'em.

YOU are not the determinant of what can or cannot exist. — Frank Apisa


The world is. I'm not going to pretend that I can't observe it.

Then get "the world" to tell me what can and cannot exist. All I am hearing from is you right now...7.6 billion to go.

You are arguing like Devans right now, Terrapin...albeit in the opposite direction.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist? — Frank Apisa


If we're talking about something that has at least some nonphysical aspects, yes. And if we're not, I don't know what we'd be talking about. The alternative would need to be specified better before I'd bother with it. — Terrapin Station

Are you saying that ideas do not exist?

Stop with that.

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. — Frank Apisa


No, it isn't. A fortiori because the concept of nonphysical existents is incoherent. But there are a number of other absurd aspects to it, too. — Terrapin

YOU are not the determinant of what can or cannot exist. You are dogmatically proclaiming that it is impossible for a god to exist...in a discussion about whether at least one god exists or not.

I'm sure you object when someone proclaims that at least one god MUST exist.

I do not follow that thought. — Frank Apisa


In other words, in the case of a god, all the evidence we have so far shows no god to exist.

There is NOT A SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE that shows that no gods exist.

Not one tiny piece.

Cite what you consider to be the single most important piece of evidence that shows that "no gods exist"...and I will show it to be worthless.

Terrapin Station
8.2k

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa


That's only warranted if:

(a) It's not impossible or incoherent that the thing in question might exist, — Terrapin Station

And you are saying that it IS impossible or incoherent for gods to exist?

C'mon!

In any case, I welcome any evidence you have that it is impossible or incoherent that gods can exist.

(b) It's plausible that the thing in question might exist, and — Terrapin

It is as "plausible" that gods exist as it is that no gods exist. That is why the issue has been debated throughout history as often as it has. We simply do not know which it is.

(c) There's no evidence that the thing in question doesn't exist. — Terrapin

I do not follow that thought.

It interests me but is kinda convoluted. Could you (would you) flesh it out a bit?

The notion of gods has problems with (a), (b) and (c). — Terrapin

I disagree that the notion of gods has problems with (a) or (b). I am not sure of what you are saying in (c).

Some other things that we have no evidence for don't have any of (a), (b) or (c) against them. For those things, it's reasonable to answer that you don't know. — Terrapin

Agreed.

AND I think the only logical default point on the issue of the existence or non-existence of any gods...

...is I DO NOT KNOW.

SethRy
98

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. — Frank Apisa


You compared that to a god, is the defective. You are correct, whether the entirety of the universe or just that limited interstice you mentioned does not contain any sentient being, it cannot logically lead to a nonexistence conclusion. — SethRy

I am NOT making such a comparison.

I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.

The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS.

Or at very least, NO inference should be drawn from the fact that there is no evidence...that perforce it does not exist. Other evidence may lead there.

However, a comparison to that of a supernatural transcendence, is just flawed. Yes you can assert that the absence of evidence for God does not imply evidence of absence for God, and I stand with that argument for God consistently. Such differently, a transcendent being cannot be limited to resource or value, it is only whether he exists or not, thus, inductive; or argument by probability, is not logically capable to comprehend an agnostic view towards a god. For the reason that it is also possible that God cannot be present conceivably in the universe, the need for thorough examination or by probability can just not work for his existence. — Seth

There is nothing "flawed" about my reasoning on this issue.

And since you dislike using specific terms, I do remember your viewpoint towards the existence of God. — Seth

Horse shit!

You remember no such thing...because I most assuredly do not have an inclination toward "at least one god exists"...or toward "no gods exist." Not in any way whatsoever.

Whatever you think you remember...is your imagination at work.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
But time has a start. Suggesting 'everything' (in terms of all particles) had a start co-incidental with that... the Big Bang. The Big Bang sure looks like a first cause to me.

The way time works, if you don't have a first cause, you have an infinite regress, which is impossible. — Devans99

It is "impossible" if all the considerations and assumptions you are making are correct.

They may not be.

I don't mean to be a pest, Devans. Just going with my feelings here.

Of course, I may be wrong. I acknowledge that.

You may have solved a problem that has stumped the greatest minds ever to live on the planet. And done it so easily. Able to sum it up in just a few short paragraphs.

You may have.

Those of us speaking with you about your "solution" might just be lucky to have been here to see it.

Devans99
1.2k

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one. — Frank Apisa


In that case then the arguments Thomas Aquinas and I put forward are arguments for God. It's just most people's definition include the 3Os - the attributes of God need a separate thread probably.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest. — Frank Apisa


But with a timeless first cause, there is no infinite regress. — Devans99

Let the "timeless first cause" be EVERYTHING. All of existence.

The "need" for a first cause is manufactured. There is no such need.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I believe science backs my position, both the Big Bang theory and the theory of Eternal Inflation posit a first cause. — Devans99

Your guess about what science does is of no consequences.

Devans, the finest minds that have ever existed have pondered the problem you are so sure you have solved. They've all come up short. But you can do it in a casual way...and "prove" it in a short paragraph or two.

C'mon.

In order to prove God's existence, you must first define the term 'God'. What is your definition?

You continue to use "God"...as in "in order to prove God's existence."

Not especially good move.

If you are asking what a god would be to my mind (which is of no consequences) I would suppose some kind of creator entity...a "first cause" IF AND ONLY IF...there is a need for one.

I see absolutely no need for a "first cause." If I came up with a NEED for a "first cause" ...I would be inviting a different infinite regression from the one you suggest.

I've dealt with all sorts of proofs for the existence of gods on the Internet (and before)...but most are more out-front than yours, Devans.

Only you know for sure if I am correct in what suggest about your argument.

— Devans99

Devans99
1.2k

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic. — Frank Apisa


I would also point to my supporting arguments here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5242/infinite-being

That existing for infinity is impossible. — Devans99

Your "supporting arguments" notwithstanding...you have no idea if you are correct or dead wrong on this issue...and you really need to develop the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge that.

But...if I am correct that this argument of yours is just a backdoor attempt at a proof of a god...

...you will never get there.

We'll just keep talking.

Devans99
1.2k

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can. — Frank Apisa


I would reference points 1 through 6 here:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5302/an-argument-for-eternalism/p1

As proof that things cannot 'exist forever'. Thomas Aquinas was of the same mind I believe. — Devans99

Dogma is dogma no matter how often written.

You are suggesting something you cannot know,...and then insisting that you have arrived at it through reason and logic.

You cannot.

The fact that people like Einstein, Sagan, Hawking, Feynman could not do it...should give you pause. But apparently it doesn't.

Strange that!

Devans99
1.2k

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause — Frank Apisa


I don't understand what you mean. — Devans99

I realize that...which is why I repeat myself with you. I suspect it is why so many others do that same thing.

I was caused by my parents meaning I was not the first cause for example... — Devans

Okay...you were "caused" and I was "caused" and World War II was caused. But that does not mean that existence and all of its components were "caused."

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also. — Frank Apisa


If things go back forever, they have no start. If they have no start, there is no middle or end so they don't exist. So things cannot 'always exist'. — Devans

When you say "Things cannot always exist" you are being dogmatic. Fact is...PERHAPS they can.

I cannot think of any way to explain that to you that you will be willing to understand. So I am left with repeating myself. So are the others.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.) — Frank Apisa


I am trying to establish whether a first cause exists as that is a more logical and scientific question that the ill defined question of whether there is a God or not.

I am not talking about what you say you are doing, Devans. I am speaking about what I suspect you are doing. If I am wrong...I am wrong. Respectfully as possible, though, I cannot take your word for it.

Devans99
1.2k
↪Frank Apisa
I agree, that's why I've restricted my claims to a first cause. Trying to get from that to 'God' requires a definition of God, which is probably another thread. — Devans99

Either there is or is not a "first cause"...or there is a first cause...but EVERYTHING is the first cause.

Existence itself is infinite...with nothing causing it. And everything within existence...always was also.

That is the end of the discussion...

...UNLESS YOU ARE ATTEMPTING TO ESTABLISH THAT A GOD OF SOME KIND EXISTS.

(I suspect that really is what you are attempting to do, Devans. Search your motives. If you are not doing that...none of this stuff makes any sense.)

Purple Pond
379
↪I like sushi
I could get angry that you cursed at me. I could say fuck you back. I could say that I don't like sushi. But I won't. I'm an person with integrity and if is say anger is bad, then I will avoid getting angry.

I will defend myself by saying that I don't think I wrote anything that I deserve to be cursed at. — Purple Pond

This is a Philosophy Forum.

One...you were not "cursed" at. "Curse" should have a specific meaning in a Philosophy Forum. If Sush had said, "Damn you"...that would be cursing. He merely threw a vulgarity at you.

Two...you should more carefully consider the words "humor response."

ASIDE: I laughed out loud when I read the response.

SethRy
97

The ever-expanding and constant growth of the universe can give us somewhat a logical reason to assert, that there is a race of sentient beings outside us humans. — Frank Apisa


That's a different counterargument for the same conclusion.

You and I can agree that the universe is ever-expanding, or infinite. The universe's infinity implies infinite resources and infinite time. If so, we can logically assume, that the chances for sentient beings outside us humans to live on planets is quite high. So out of the 'no evidence' argument that you proposed, which is as it follows;

The fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there. By the same token, the fact that we have no evidence that NO SENTIENT LIFE exists on any of those planets...cannot logically lead to the conclusion that life exists there...or that it is more likely that life exists there.

It simply indicates that we have no evidence...in either direction.

If any conclusion has to be drawn from the "lack of evidence that life exists there" or "lack of evidence that no life exists there"...it is that we do not know and cannot make a meaningful guess about whether or not life does or does not exist on any of those planets. — Frank Apisa


How that argument is flawed is that you neglected the concept of perceivable infinity, which makes other sentient beings more probable to exist because of that infinity. For God, it doesn't necessarily mean hat way — for it is also probable, that his existence is not attached to matter despite his omnipresence, that he is imperceptible. — SethRy

I've called this to your attention before...and will do it again right now:

I am not talking about sentient life in the universe.

I am SPECIFICALLY talking about sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol...right at this moment.

That is a very specific and limited venue.

And I stand by my argument that the fact that we have no evidence that sentient life exists on any of those planets...CANNOT logically lead to the conclusion that no sentient life exists on any of them...or that it is more likely that there is no sentient life there.

So...let's go back to that.

What do you find defective in my argument?