Funny, but Tuesday at work I said something I regretted the instant the short sentence ended. It was in a three way conversation...and I could barely wait until it ended so I could mention to one of the people my regret.

But that said, now that I am an old fart, I find myself regretting many things I've said (and done) from my distant past. Some of these things come up out of the blue...most often as I have laid my head down to go to sleep at night.

Bottom line: You cannot change what is past, but you can use things you regret from the past to improve the now and tomorrow. Time spent regretting it CAN BE wasted time...after the lesson for improvement has been learned.

Without the conclusion, "...to which everyone gives the name of God.’"...

...(which is an absurd conclusion to Aquinas' argument)...

...but without it, it makes no sense at all.

The only reason for the argument of a "first cause" IS to get to the god Aquinas wanted to get to.

Without that reason...no need for a first cause.

Without the god ending...just have EVERYTHING...ALL of existence...be the first cause.

Trying to exclude the "god conclusion" is just another backdoor attempt to conclude the existence of a god...without acknowledging that is what is being done.

SethRy
96

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it. — Frank Apisa


I agree with your conclusion, but not with how you crafted it.

The semantics behind what you are saying, I would say is erroneous. For you are comparing the existence of two different things. An external, undiscovered race, Aliens, will be just like us — not necessarily by rationality or practice, but that we are natural, contingent beings. Another external, unseen being, God, but holding a difference that he is a supernatural, necessary being. Comparatively, God's transcendent oneness is not like that of a human's or contingent being's existence.

Simply put, for the reason that God is supernatural, his existence is beyond natural presuppositions like: atomic nuclei, content and state of matter, or if he has a respiratory system or not, he is not relative to that of a human. Humans, are presumably similar to other races: natural, specific arrangement of species, and develop life. By those premises, you can assume that external races from human discovery or humans ourselves, do exist. It's not like that of a god, that you can assert his existence because the universe is not completely examined in its entirety. You can't say 'we haven't found him yet' like that of an external race. — SethRy

Seth.

The thing I was asking you to explain was your comment,

"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."

(That was in response to my comment, "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.")

I do not see that explanation in your response.

We can get to this new comment of yours...but I really would like to understand why you suggest that "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."

Answer this question: Do you KNOW if there is a god? — ZhouBoTong

As you guessed, NO, I do not know if there are ANY GODS.

Now answer this one: Do you THINK there is a god?

NO, I do not "think" there are any gods...nor do I guess there are any gods.

I also do not "think" there are no gods...and I do not guess there are no gods.

If forced to make a guess...I will do it.

"I don't know" does NOT answer the second question. It is like answering "what is your favorite color?" with "42". — Zhou

Okay. Although for the record, my stock answer for the question "Where on the political spectrum do you fall...with extreme liberal at 1 and extreme conservative at 10?...is...

...purple.

I've used that often.

Notice if someone asked me "do you believe in "uhenthdfrteunty" I would answer, "I do not even know what that is, so of course I can't possibly believe in it. If you care to give me a definition of 'uhenthdfrteunty', then we can confirm my lack of belief or possibly find something I do believe in."

Question for you: When you use the word "believe" in conversations dealing with gods...how does a "belief" differ from "blind guess?"

Pattern-chaser
860

Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists." — Frank Apisa


No, it's saying that it is beyond the understanding of scientists if they apply only science and scientific techniques. — Pattern-chaser

My response essentially is what I just posted to Leo.

I am answering the question of the OP with:

It is possible.

Let's take this from a different angle.

What I was attempting to say and may have done a poor job of...

...is that there ARE things that humans may not know about...may not understand...

...BUT THAT ACTUALLY ARE. They exist.

Essentially that is an extension of my comment, "Unless a thing is established as IMPOSSIBLE...it is POSSIBLE.

Pattern-chaser
849

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. — Frank Apisa


Sorry, this isn't right. Science is one tool we have to use in the pursuit of understanding. There are others too. The most obvious example is simple, considered, thought; a structured consideration of something, outside of the methods and techniques of science. This is often called "philosophy". Art is also a possible way of exploring things too; it depends on the nature of the thing we're considering. There is more to life than mere science. — Pattern-chaser

Allow me to disagree...as respectfully as possible.

Every scientist...is first and foremost...a human being.

Saying "it is beyond scientific understanding"...is actually saying, "it is beyond the understanding of scientists."

Therefore...it is beyond the understanding of humans.

That is not to say humans cannot do art or poetry or music or philosophizing. But "understanding" as used here, is something else.

THE CONTEXT WAS A COMMENT OF MINE: I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though. Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding. Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding.

If you want to "play" with this for some reason, I'm game for a short while.

Here is a site I have used for years. Put a word into it...and you will get the word as defined in 10 - 30 different dictionaries.

https://www.onelook.com/


I also use this one for etymology:

https://www.etymonline.com

PossibleAaran
189

In casual conversation one can easily and reasonably say, "I know where I parked my car"; "I know the name on my birth certificate is..."; "I know that London is the capital of England"...and the like.

But saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation. — Frank Apisa


Here is what I think I disagree with. Why does saying "I know there are no Gods" or "I know there is a God" require more substantiation than "I know that London is the capital of England"? — PossibleAaran

I cannot help you with that further, Aaran.

If you think that is illogical...we'll just have to disagree.

— SethRy

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


This is where you argue inductively. 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. — SethRy

I do not see how that follows at all.

Please fill me in on how that works. We can discuss it.

You still remember I am, theistic right?

No, and I may forget. If it is important for anything you are saying, just remind me.

ZhouBoTong
148

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


So I think what you are saying is that no one can prove a negative? — ZhouBoTong

That definitely is NOT what I am saying. Of course one can prove a negative.

That is why the burden of proof is typically on those making a claim vs those denying it (I get that you are claiming to do neither). That being said, a lack of evidence can precisely be evidence. — Zhao

The burden of proof falls on anyone making an assertion. If one asserts, "There are no gods"...the burden of proof is as real as the burden for the assertion, "At least one GOD exists."

Is there a monster under your bed?

First we need to define monster. First, it is bigger than a small pet. Could the monster be invisible, lack odor, make no noise etc - yes, seems reasonable. Can the monster be immaterial? No that is a spirit or ghost or apparition or something. Now given these qualifiers, we can "prove" there is no monster by a lack of evidence. If it cannot be seen, felt, smelled, or heard, then it is NOT there. Now obviously with gods, we have much more space to check than just under the bed, but a lack of evidence is still evidence in the direction of no gods.

Would you say it is unreasonable to doubt the existence of monsters under your bed? — Zhao

There is evidence. You look under the bed and there is no monster.

And, If you were able to look everywhere in the universe and find no gods...that would be evidence of no gods. Because one finds no eight-legged, two-headed equines on planet Earth...is not evidence there are no eight-legged, two-headed equines. And because we humans are unable to detect any extra-dimensional beings of any sort (god-like or not god-like) here on Earth...does not mean there are no extra-dimensional beings here.

ASIDE: I have been wrong on my wording...careless actually. Of course there is evidence that at least one GOD exists...AND that no gods exist. Everything that exists is evidence that no gods exist IF NO GODS EXIST...and everything is evidence that at least one GOD exists IF ONE GOD EXISTS.

I should have used "unambiguous evidence"...which will still have to be defended, but is what I usually use.

What about the lock ness monster? — Zhao

Been a friend of the family for years, Z. What about it?

Could there have been humans in the past with super powers (real power, not a little smarter than average)? — Zhao

Anything not established as impossible is possible. So...there could have been.

Are Zeus and Poseidon equally likely (or unlikely) as the Christian god and is that god equally likely to any random definition of god? (notice that any random definition would include anything that could possibly be conceived of as a god, and therefor is MORE likely than the 2 previous examples by definition) — Zhao

Beats me. I do not deal with specific gods. I am dealing with the notion of "No gods exist" or "At least one GOD exists"...and I acknowledge that I do not know.

Do you?

Again, we are not claiming certainty, just likelihood. — Zhao

I have absolutely no idea of how likely it is that no gods exist...and I have absolutely no idea of how likely it is that at least one GOD exists...so I am no willing to make a guess on those questions. If you are asking me if I ever make guesses on anything else...my answer it: Yes I do. I probably will make a guess about the winner of the Kentucky Derby...and place a bet on my guess.

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


We are not likely to agree here. A lack of evidence does exactly make something less likely than if there was evidence. Otherwise, what is the point of evidence? — Zhao

Okay...that's fair. So you think that since we have no evidence of living organisms of any sort on the fifth planet out from the third closest star to Sol"...you consider that evidence that there is no life there.

Fine with me.

I hope it can be fine with you if I consider that an illogical conclusion.

I do not think you have ever addressed this bolded bit. If you can show me the error of that portion, maybe there is progress to be made. — Zhao

I did comment on it in what I think was my last post to you. I quote:

I could not disagree more, Zhou.

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.

Go at this particular again. Put out your best argument.

Let's deal with it for a bit...because there is something of consequence in this part of the issue.

We can go to the rest of your post after resolving this...if it can be resolved.

Please, no more of these long drawn out responses to many different topics. Choose one comment and I'll deal with it...and then we can move on. This gets much too cumbersome this way.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
132

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." — Frank Apisa


I will read this as you getting happier.
I base my getting happier on the how much happiness and purpose I get from life.
When I run out of both, I will be really happy that I will die as then life would have little to no meaning. — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Yeah, something like that. The way I said it pretty much sums up the way I feel.

I may be old...but I am spry and enjoy every day. I'd just as soon not die any time soon...but when it happens, it will happen.

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. — Frank Apisa


I have seen that and is partially what prompted the question.
Do you think she would tell god where to put his eternal life if he offered it?
I believe I would as more of the same old same old would not be appealing to me.

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

My aunt is not much into the "god" notion...and I have never heard her say a word about any sort of heaven or hell. She seems content to suppose that when she dies, she will simply be dead. She has had four sisters (one being my mother), a brother, and a husband who have died. Never heard a word about "I will be with them" or any thoughts of that sort.

PossibleAaran
188
↪Frank Apisa


My question to you is: why is it unacceptable to say something like "I know that God exists" or " I know that there are no gods" without having absolute certainty whilst it is acceptable to say something like "I know that London is the capital of England" without having absolute certainty? — PossibleAaran

So you are of the opinion that if it is logical to say, "London is the capital of England"...it is also logical to say, "I know there are no gods" and/or "I know there is at least one GOD."

That would be like saying it is logical to say, "I know that London is the capital of England" and/or..."I know that London is not the capital of England."

In any case, I am not saying it is "unacceptable." If a person wants to say, "I know there are no gods"...that is perfectly "acceptable." If they want to say, "I know there are no living organisms of any sort on the fifth planet out from the third closest star to Sol"...that is "acceptable."

A bit bizarre...but acceptable.

Not sure what you are getting at here, PA.

Try me again, if you want.

My specific disagreement is this: I don't see why claims about the existence of God require a larger amount of substantiation than claims (for example) about the capitals of cities.

Okay...I'll take your word on that. You do not see why a claim of "I know there are no gods" should be treated any differently from a claim of "I know Paris is the capital of France"

Best I can say in reply is: I do see it.

It seems to me that it is perfectly sufficient - there is nothing objectionable about it - to base a claim that God exists/doesn't exist on good but inconclusive evidence. I thought you disagreed with this. Am I mistaken?

I'm not really sure...mostly because I do not normally word things that way...nor do I infer what you seem to be inferring. If I may...I would ask you to quote exactly what I said that you find objectionable or incorrect...and allow me to defend those words rather than your characterization of them.

PossibleAaran
187
↪Frank Apisa
Some interesting issues get raised here.

I am not sure at all that the "casual" and "philosophical" distinction makes sense, but let's see what can be done with it anyway. It isn't clear at all that in philosophical contexts "knowing" means being absolutely certain. Most philosophical arguments don't make their conclusions absolutely certain - not even the most influential ones. Most contemporary philosophical arguments are tentative inferences to the best explanation or else deductive arguments which rest on merely plausible or "intuitive" premises. So I suppose that you aren't trying to describe how "know" is actually used in Philosophy, but recommending a way it should to be used? But what could the grounds be for this linguistic recommendation?

At any rate, it would be quite uninteresting to me if this were just a debate about how the word "know" should be used. So, leaving the word "knowledge" out of it for a minute (since it often gets in the way!), you seem to think that it is unacceptable to make philosophical claims without a "great deal of substantiation" - presumably much more substantiation than is required for casual claims - but why must that be so? Why isn't it acceptable for me to make philosophical claims on the basis of pretty good, but not conclusive, evidence? — PossibleAaran

I am sure there are many philosophical discussions where I would be content with a fairly mundane understanding of what the word "know" means to denote.

But I specifically spoke to a certain segment where I think it an inappropriate use, namely:


"...saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation."

So, I acknowledge your point that the way I said what I said requires a, "...but why must that be so."

Speaking of questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence, though...goes past that point.

Using "know" in the context of the phrases I mentioned above...incurs a burden of substantiation (not proof) that I see as both necessary (required) and unattainable.

If you differ on this...give a specific of disagreement...and I'll give my position on it.

fdrake
1.9k

The only thing I can see as a viable tactic is to gently point out the repetitive behavior, and when that fails, move on and ignore the offenders. — NKBJ


If you believe someone is behaving badly, you can PM a mod and we'll look into it. — fdrake

Some of the people doing the complaining about repetitive messages are the same people who themselves post repetitive thoughts.

The majority of issues being discussed here set that up.

"Is there a GOD (are there goes)?"

"Are there no gods?"

"Is the universe finite or infinite?"

There are really only so many answers possible...and ALL of them tend to be repeated...as are the rationals and rationalizations.

a) There are people who insist "YES" is the answer to one or more of these questions.

b) There are people who insist "NO" is the answer to one or more of these questions.

c) There are people who point out the difficulties of a "YES" or "NO" answer to any of these question...and who quietly, courteously, and helpfully suggest an "I do not know" response as being more logical and ethical.

ALL of these people give reasons for their answers.

Some of the complainers just do not like the (c) answer...or the reasons given. They tend to dismiss that answer...and complain the reasons given are repetitions...

...OFTEN while repeating their own "YES" or "NO" with repeated reasons.

Just sayin'!

Thanks for your reply. — 0 thru 9

Good topic. Thanks for starting it...and for considering my comments.

What do you think the spirit (or spiritual nature) within an individual is? — O

Have no idea...not even sure if there is "spirit" within an individual.

I am just the "me" behind the eyes...or the "me" I see when I look in a mirror. If there is a spirituality for me presently...it has to do with the thinking process I experience.

I do not suppose a soul...although there might be something of that sort. I certainly do not have conscious contact with anything like that.

Does such possibly exist?

To my way of thinking, anything that has not been established as impossible...

...IS possible.

So, for me, it is possible.

Whether there is or not would be a wild guess on my part...nothing better than a coin toss.

Here I think acceptance is of more use than challenge. Language really is a democratic institution, and its usage is dictated solely by its users. So, a few years ago, "bad" came to mean good, in everyday parlance. It doesn't really matter whether you or I like it; it just is.

Giving dictionaries more authority is, I think, an unachievable aim. The users of our language currently hold that authority, as they always have, and probably always will. I can't see language users losing their authority over their own language, can you? And, even if it was possible, would you really want it to happen? Consider, if dictionaries have authority, where does this authority rest? With one or a few senior dictionary executives, or something similar. What has been gained? :wink: — Pattern-chaser

At best, a dictionary can give us the etymology of the word...and an idea of how it is used currently.

That helps...but is not authoritative.

Most people writing in the forums give an explanation of how they are using a word when they use it in an unconventional way.

Works for me.

Are you happy to know you will die? — Gnostic Christian Bishop

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.

"Knowledge" as you are using the word, requires complete certainty. Nothing wrong with that, but your claim that noone knows whether God exists is not very interesting given that definition. Most philosophers - atheist and theist - would agree that noone knows with certainty that God exists. They would say, rather that there are good reasons to favour one side rather than another. Moreover, so what if we can't know whether God exists with certainty? I can't even know with certainty some trivial matter like what I had for breakfast half an hour ago. — PossibleAaran

I get what you are saying...but the fact remains that "knowing" used in certain contexts is quite different from "knowing" used in a philosophical context.

In casual conversation one can easily and reasonably say, "I know where I parked my car"; "I know the name on my birth certificate is..."; "I know that London is the capital of England"...and the like.

But saying "I know there are no gods" or "I know there is a GOD" or "I know it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...demands a totally different sensibility...and incurs a great burden of substantiation.

There is certainly nothing wrong with guessing that a GOD exists. (I did during an earlier part of my life)...nor with guessing that no gods exist. But they are just guesses...no matter what the guesses are labelled.

One is also free not to make any guesses on the issue...which I consider to be the more ethical way to handle things.

Or to put it positively, the topic is “The Possible Existence (and Definition) of Spirit”} — 0 thru 9

If your question includes the notion, "Are there things involved in REALITY that humans either do not know exist or are not capable of knowing"...then of course the "possibility" of those things existing does occur.

I do question the use of the word "supernatural" in this type of question, though.

Supernatural usually is defined as, "something attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

If it is "beyond scientific understanding"...then by definition it is beyond human understanding.

Surely there ARE things beyond human understanding.

However, the second understanding of "supernatural"..."something beyond the laws of nature" is stickier.
If a thing "exists"...it exists. It IS a part of nature whether humans are capable of understanding it or not.

If "ghosts" or "spirit entities" exist...they ARE part of nature.

Any of the things normally held to be "supernatural"...shouldn't be considered that at all.

IF they exist...they are a part of nature...not other than natural at all.

Off-topic comments (which are often interesting to some, perhaps distracting to others) would be sidelined rather than stumbled over or deleted. Probably not feasible with the forum software, just a marginal idea. — 0 thru 9

Any contributor who considers a particular fellow poster to be uninteresting, annoying, or irrelevant...has the option of disregarding that poster and his/her comments. Most adult participants do that in those situations.

But to play the scold (while pretending to be above that kind of thing)...and dispense officious warnings and repremands...is what jerks do instead.

My purpose with this thread was to determine if S was the site owner; a moderator issuing a warning; or a goddam jerk inappropriately shooting off his/her mouth.

I now know the answer to my question...so...everything has worked out fine.

ssu
1k

In political discussions I am often labelled a "liberal" because I mostly favor a progressive agenda. But I insist I am NOT a liberal...which is a label. I am satisfied to offer my views on anything...and prefer that those views not pigeonhole me with a label. — Frank Apisa

Giving labels to other people and then attacking the worst stereotypes of the followers of that "ism" is an easy method to circumvent actual discussion. It's quite luring to do this. Just think your own actions if you, as a mostly progressive person, would have to make small talk with a person who would start with saying "I voted Trump in the last election".

Nobody starts small talk with a stranger like this anywhere. If the other person is totally on the opposite side, the situation is awkward. Of course it shouldn't be so, if we truly would be open to ideas of others and respect each other. — ssu

Right on the button, ssu.

One of the reasons I am at a Philosophy Forum right now, is because these days, any political discussion tends to quickly go off the tracks.

DingoJones
639
↪Janus


Well yes, that is where we disagree I think. People don’t pigeon hole themselves via someone elses assumption. That doesnt make sense to me. Rather the one with assumptions, even justified ones, bears the responsibility of any mislabeling of a persons stances. Its them who should maintain a stricter awareness. If its the other way around, we are all at the mercy of other peoples assumptions. — DingoJones

One of the big problems with labels or descriptors has to do with whether the label or descriptor is being self-applied or applied FROM someone else.

In political discussions I am often labelled a "liberal" because I mostly favor a progressive agenda. But I insist I am NOT a liberal...which is a label. I am satisfied to offer my views on anything...and prefer that those views not pigeonhole me with a label.

Self-applied labels makes lots more sense to me. If a person tells me they are "an agnostic" (liberal, conservative, atheist, theist) I have an idea, within boundries, of what they are trying to communicate.

Not so when someone says (often "accuses") someone else of "being."

fdrake
1.9k

I'll calm down now...and just ignore S. — Frank Apisa


If you and someone don't get along on here it's usually best to ignore them.

I will do my best to be a decent contributor. — Frank Apisa


Thanks.

I had a look at the discussion between you and S, just looks like it got heated. There were parts of your posts of questionable relevance to the discussion topics, which S reacted to with the spam accusation. If I've read it right with my skim read anyway.

Doesn't seem like much of a scene is required, it's not like you merc'd each other in a rap beef fam. — fdrake

Thank you, Drake.

All I really wanted to know is whether the "warning" was coming from someone in authority...or just from someone inappropriately shooting of his/her mouth. I now know...and I appreciate the matter being resolved.

The agnostic type position I hold about questions involving the true nature of the REALITY of existence (in particular whether gods are are or are not involved) matters a great deal to me. I think recognition of "I do not know and cannot determine" is essential to reasonable discussion of the issues at hand here. But because the position of "I do not know" is so unpopular with the "it is most likely this/it is most likely that" crowd, it often is seen as a one-trick pony show.

It is not.

I will defend it as strongly as the guessers defend their position...and I will not have it dismissed out-of-hand as "spam"...at least not by someone regulating the forum.

Thanks to everyone else who replied for their comments and help.

That DOES NOT EVEN logically lead to...it is more likely that no sentient beings exist on any of them...than that at least one has sentient life. — Frank Apisa


In fact, it exactly logically leads to that. When someone says "more likely" what are they comparing? If there is NO evidence it is CERTAINLY less likely than if there IS evidence....right? This makes no statement on how much more likely (could be 51% or 99%). — ZhouBoTong

I could not disagree more, Zhou.

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.

Go at this particular again. Put out your best argument.

Let's deal with it for a bit...because there is something of consequence in this part of the issue.

We can go to the rest of your post after resolving this...if it can be resolved.

↪Frank Apisa


List of staff, including who is online, the little face in the top right corner of our poster icons indicates that we are staff. jamalrob is the owner and has been summoned to the thread.

If your issue concerns treatment from other members, including mods, you are free to personal message any mod and we can try and deal with whatever interpersonal problem that there is. — fdrake

Thank you, Drake.

No need to make a big thing of this. The individual "S" has on two occasions accused me of spamming the forum.

I would not do that under any circumstances.

In one instance, S made a threat about banning.

Since I did not know who are the chiefs and who are the Indians, I got hot. Very hot, in fact, Apologized once...and then got hit with another "spamming" comment.

I thought it might be the owner or a moderator...and I was willing to leave the forum if unwelcome.

I'll calm down now...and just ignore S.

I will do my best to be a decent contributor.

S
9.1k

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum. — Frank Apisa


Uh oh, flaming. I am not the owner or a moderator, although I have a pretty good understanding from a moderator's perspective, having been one myself here for a couple of years. It wasn't a threat, it was an advising of precaution. Although the second time around I simply told you to stop spamming, which is an imperative.

You're free to ignore it. I have no authority in that sense. But I don't like spam on this forum. Maybe they were more tolerant of it in your previous forum. — S

Fuck you!

S
9.1k

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you? — Frank Apisa


That's a different meaning to what I meant. Obviously. — S

I no longer care about your meaning. I have heard the same nonsense from you time after time...and I have never considered telling you to shut up...or threatened you with banning for spamming.

I intend to find out who owns this site...and who is moderating it. If you are not the owner or a moderator...I am telling you to go fuck yourself. If, on the other hand, you are the owner or a moderator...I will voluntarily leave the forum.

S
9.1k
↪Frank Apisa
You must have made that point about a hundred times now. Stop spamming. — S

Obviously I have not made it. YOU are not conceding it...are you?

As for the "spamming" nonsense...shove it.

tim wood
2.1k
↪Frank Apisa
It appears to me these are all countable in principle. That is, not infinite. If that is what you mean, then fine. We have just refined what we're talking about so that we're both on the same page. A useful concept to keep in mind is the length of a path on the surface of a sphere. — tim wood

I do not know if the universe is finite or infinite.

I suspect you do not either.

But if you are going to insist you do...then a burden of proof accrues.

Meet it or let's just end this thing.

Well...obviously some people blindly guess there are no gods.

Some people blindly guess there is at a least one god.

Some people just don't bother to guess.

The people making the blind guesses call their blind guesses...beliefs.

Wonder why they do that?

Wouldn't it be more ethical to call them "guesses?"

NKBJ
727

So...where does that leave us? — Frank Apisa


That leaves us agreeing to disagree I suppose? At least, it seems to me the conversation is not moving forward much at this point.

Truce? Or do you have something heretofore unmentioned to add? — NKBJ

Yeah, I've got "something heretofore unmentioned" to add.

I work as a starter at a golf course. Today was a banner day...warm, not a lot of wind...really pleasant. Instead of playing, I was sending other people out to play. And, being a good employee, I was smiling and being a good host while doing it.

I had a choice. Break something, kick the cat...or go into the Internet and "discuss" something.

Breaking things is childish...so I didn't choose that. I love our cats...so I didn't choose that.

NKBJ
726

You are going ape.

Didn't mean to rattle you so. I thought you were more in control. — Frank Apisa


Oh boy... and we were just starting to get along. Too bad you can't stay nice consistently.

In any case, if you want to think that you KNOW that no gods exist, because I cannot "know" my birthday is August 9th...fine with me. — Frank Apisa


Oh boy again... I'm merely explaining why your logic isn't consistent.

Anyway, guess your odd and vague reply just means you can't explain how you can claim to know your birthday but not the non-existence of gods. — NKBJ

I do not know if any gods exist or not. I do not know if no gods exist.

I suspect you do not either...especially if it is the "there are no gods."

THAT is impossible to know.

So...where does that leave us?

tim wood
2.1k

So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand. — Frank Apisa


Ok. Make a decision. Are you using "infinite" as metaphor for something? If so please make it clear what that might be. Or as it is defined? In which case, please justify - argue - your application. — tim wood

I am using it thusly:


extending indefinitely : ENDLESS
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/infinite

Limitless or endless in space, extent, or size; impossible to measure or calculate
Oxford Dictionary
https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/us/infinite

American Heritage Dictionary.
Having no boundaries or limits; impossible to measure or calculate.
https://www.ahdictionary.com/word/search.html?q=infinite

NKBJ
725

I'm glad you had fun. Fun is a big part of these Internet fora...and I also am having fun. This seems to be a win/win situation. — Frank Apisa


Good! I'm glad you're not as irritated as you seemed to be earlier in this thread :) — NKBJ

Thanks, N.

Sorry you are. :wink:

NKBJ
724
↪Frank Apisa


On what basis do you know that your birthday isn't a mistake? That you weren't switched at birth? We have evidence that people do get switched at birth (in which case your birthday may be August 8th or 7th or even 6th!), whereas we have no evidence that gods exist or even could exist. It's actually far more likely that you're wrong about your birthday than that gods exist.

By your logic, you cannot claim you know your birthday. — NKBJ

You are going ape.

Didn't mean to rattle you so. I thought you were more in control.

In any case, if you want to think that you KNOW that no gods exist, because I cannot "know" my birthday is August 9th...fine with me. Actually kind of amusing...and we both enjoy fun.

tim wood
2.1k

If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.

Have at it. — Frank Apisa


You're a rhinoceros with quills, a duck's bill under your horn, and webbed feet. You say you're not? Prove it! The burden of proof is on you.

I imagine you have a problem with this. Anyone can assert anything and demand someone else prove that it's not the case, and absent proof the assertion must be accorded the respect of possibility - that would be you. But as to the infinite, it's not a case of cases to be proved, it's the understanding of the meaning of a word. Can you count a star? The sun, for example, is a star. Call it number one. What you're representing is that in principle, by definition, it is not possible to count the stars. Granted there are a lot of stars and that counting them might be physically difficult, but in principle they are countable, which means not infinite. — tim wood

So...you think it is okay, reasonable, and logical for you to make a sweeping assertion about the nature of REALITY...and when called upon to meet the burden of proof that accrues...you can simply dismiss it out-of-hand.

Hummm.

That is an unusual position to take for someone participating in a discussion in an Internet forum.

But...if that is how you operate....go with it.

NKBJ
723
↪Frank Apisa
Using your exact logic you would be bound to:

"I do not know if the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect exists or not;
I see no reason to suspect the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect CANNOT EXIST...that the existence of the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect is impossible;
I see no reason to suspect that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect MUST EXIST...that the chance that NKBJ is correct and also Frank Apisa's superior in every way which includes her amazingly good looks and supreme intellect is 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."

So yeah, your logic leads to the conclusion that you can't know and can't meaningfully guess at whether I know that there is no God.

(Yes, I had fun writing that :heart: ) — NKBJ

I'm glad you had fun. Fun is a big part of these Internet fora...and I also am having fun. This seems to be a win/win situation.

My comments on whether gods exist or no gods exist...do not universalize the way you want them to seem.

I am NOT saying I do not know anything...I know quite a lot...using a reasonable definition of "know."

I know by birthday falls on August 9th; I know I am sitting at my desk typing on the keyboard of our computer; I know 2 + 2 = 4 in base ten; I know London is the capital of England; I know my wife is gonna give me a bit of kind grief when she gets home because I did not do nearly justice to the Honey-Do list today.

But I do not know if gods exist...or is there are no gods...or if the universe is infinite or discrete.

So...I see that you are being illogical on the issue which got us here.

That stuff you wrote just does not compute.

tim wood
2.1k

Anthony does not know if we live in an infinite universe or not...

...and neither do you, Tim. — Frank Apisa


It's not the universe in question, it's the understanding of a word. Apparently you are one of those who do not understand the word. Or maybe it's a term of art for Anthony - in which case I'd like to know which art and what it means. Or maybe he just means it metaphorically. Up to him to say.

But here's part of what it means: as to number, whatever quality you can attribute, some lesser number already has that quality, or another way, something that is always greater then the thing you can specify. Now, just for fun, can you describe any aspect of the physical universe that cannot in principle be counted? — tim wood

Tim, this may come as a big shock...and may, in your opinion, disqualify me from commenting on matters like this...BUT...

...I actually do not know everything about every aspect of the "physical universe"...nor of existence itself.

There may be things that cannot be "counted"...in the sense I think you are using that word. And those "things"...in the sense that I think you are using that word, might be as out-of-touch to me (and other humans) as quantum mechanics is to a ferret.

The universe, Tim, may be infinite...or boundless or unlimited, if you want to play word-games...

...and it may be discrete or finite (as you choose to use those words.)

I do not know which it is.

I would bet big money that you do not either.

If you are asserting it is finite (or at least, not infinite)...the burden of proof is on you.

Have at it.

NKBJ
722

Really?

And let's hear your case for that.

You may be right...although I doubt it.

If you are, I will acknowledge it. — Frank Apisa


Ah, but (again, by your logic) you can't know that I'm right. You also can't know that I'm wrong. Absent any way to know either way, you are eternally suspended in an agnostic limbo. — NKBJ

That is the worst description of what I have been saying I have ever heard.

What makes you think I cannot know you are right or wrong?