Fooloso4
279

Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments. — Frank Apisa


Really? I think it is quite clear. Not knowing whether God exists or not does not mean we should conclude that it is as likely that he does as it is that he does not. — Fooloso4

But that has been my point right along.

Are you agreeing with me...or are you disagreeing?

Neither Jesus nor Paul would have referred to the Hebrew Bible as the old testament. If we look at Jesus' Sermon on the Mount it is clear that he wished to fulfill the Law not abolish it. It was central to his teaching, although his interpretation differed from the Pharisees. Paul, however, contrary to Jesus, declares the Law is not necessary. I don't think the difference can be any clearer.

We really have no idea what Jesus might have said and what was filtered and altered by the followers of Paul. What we do know, according to Paul, is that Jesus' disciples were in fundamental disagreement with him regarding the importance of the Law.

One other thing should be pointed out. There were a variety of gospels that were censored and destroyed by the early Church Fathers. Based on those that have survived it is clear that the superficially uniform message of the NT could not have been maintained if the self appointed authorities had not imposed an official canon. — Fooloso4

Okay...in the other thread I was not able to understand what you were saying or why you were saying it.

Here, I not only understand...I agree totally and emphatically.

I've done several papers on both Acts and Galatians that support your position here.

Fooloso4
278

That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

You were taking exception to that. — Frank Apisa


We do not know if there is life on Mars but this does not mean that it is as likely to be true that there is as it is that there is not. We do not know if the sun will rise tomorrow, but that does not mean that it is as likely to not rise as it is that it will rise. Not knowing something does not mean that it is as likely to be true as false. We need to consider why someone thinks something is or is not likely to be the case. — Fooloso4

Sorry, Fooloso...not meaning to be rude, but I have no idea of what the hell you are talking about or where you are heading with your comments.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
I'm not playing a silly game, you seem to be, because I have already addressed your issue in your one and only discussion, which I've already referred you to, and you could have easily found my answer to your silly questions yourself. It's another false dilemma. Here is what I already told you, in reply to you, on the very first page of your one and only discussion:

Then you're in the same category as me in that regard, whatever we name it. I talk about this in terms besides probability, such as in terms of plausibility or evidence or good reason, and I don't make the claim that god exists or that no god exists. — S


So stop acting like an 82 year old child. What's funny about that? I am not a mathematician, and I doubt whether even a mathematician could give a credible assessment based on probability.

The "whatever we name it" was also important. But your approach has yet to developed around that realisation. — S

You seem upset.

Calm down. We're just discussing.

Very often I say something somewhere...and have to repeat it. No big deal. Sorry it seems to be that for you.

You still haven't answered the question...even in that comment from my one and only discussion.

There you talk about "plausibility or evidence or good reason."

I personally cannot see a reasonable "plausibility estimate" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.

I personally cannot see ANY unambiguous evidence that impacts on which is more likely or if they are should be considered equal.

I personally cannot see any "good reason" that impacts on which is more likely or if they should be considered equal.

My point all along is to determine if YOU see it more likely that "there are no gods" than that "at least one god exists"...or if YOU see it more likely that "at least one god exists" than that "no gods exist"...

...or if you see it as a toss up.

Why are YOU having so much trouble with this.

I have no trouble answering the question clearly. Why do you?

Okay...a challenge.

Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa


What one takes to be likely is based on evidence and temperament. I find no evidence that leads me to think it is likely that there is a God. I have no convictions that lead me to think that there is a God. Someone else, however, may have strong convictions that there is a God and believe that everything is evidence that there is a God. For him it is not only likely that there is a God, but he does not even think it possible that there is not.

I see no way or even any reason to resolve these differences.


— Fooloso4

That is why I wrote: "...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

You were taking exception to that.

Apparently you do agree, though.

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal? — Frank Apisa


Neither. If you've forgotten my position, you need only use your discussion as a reference. — S

Silly game you are playing...but if it keeps you around, I'm up to it.

Either you are of the opinion that the likelihood of "at least one god exists" is greater than the likelihood that "no gods exist...

...or the likelihood of "no gods exist" is greater than the likelihood that "at least one god exists"...

...or you are of the opinion that likelihood is equal or indeterminate. (Of course, you can claim none of the above...to provide humor...in which case I will laugh and enjoy it.)

So...which is it?

Fooloso4
274

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists." — Frank Apisa


I do not think it is so simple. Many things that had previously been attributed to the work of God now have physical explanations in which the supernatural plays no role. Newton set out to demonstrate the hand of God at work, but it turned out that his physics left no room for the actions of God. It was the work of natural forces not God at work. There are some who appeal to some form of intelligent design, but natural explanations increasingly leave no place for the hand of God. The only place left where a God may play a role is with claims that God is the ground or source of existence. But if we ask why there must be a ground or source, something other than what is as the reason for what is, then such claims seem less likely. — Fooloso4

Okay...a challenge.

Using reason, logic, math, or science...present an argument that...

...it is more likely there is at least one god than that there are none...or...

...it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I will then use that argument in another setting...and we'll see how it works there.

↪Frank Apisa


One thing I like to do when its clear someone doesnt know what they are talking about but offers their “knowledge” on the subject is to quickly google the subject to see how close what they offered is to the result. Yours is an exact match to the very first result, right down to your hilarious french reference.
If you are going to shout your idiosyncratic use of atheism under the guise of “knowledge” on the subject, at least put in a little effort. Scroll down, click on “more results”, look around a bit and pull from more than one source...make it at least somewhat difficult for someone to discover you for the fraud you are. — DingoJones

I have been discussing this topic for over 20 years on the Internet...and have written many published op ed pieces on it for over 20 years before that.

The "French reference" is something anyone should know who decides to discuss this subject...and I have use it (as it should be used) for over 40 years.

If there is anyone here who does not know what he is talking about...it is you. Your argument was "Atheism 101...at best.

Now...if it make you feel good to suppose that anyone not expressing a "belief" in any gods is required to be an atheist...do it. I can understand atheists wanting agnostics in their ranks to raise the intelligence level.

S
8.7k

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that. — Frank Apisa


No, you cannot grasp that that's beside the point, as I argued in your own discussion. You seemed to agree with me then, but now I realise that that's largely because I didn't give a name to my position, and for good reason, because it encourages petty semantic insistences like we've witnessed here. — S

Do you assert that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...or are you content to say the chances of "no gods exist" and "at least one god exists" are equal?

S
8.7k

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer. — Frank Apisa


Oh dear. That's even worse. So you have no excuse. — S

Ahhh...still responding.

Still meeting that part of my plan!

Thanks.:wink:

DingoJones
587
↪Frank Apisa


That is what atheism means. Its not because I say so, but because that is what the word was created to mean. — DingoJones

Respectfully as possible...that is not so.


An atheist that thinks being an atheist means something else such as that you hate religion or do not believe in anything supernatural is confused. Hating religion is anti-theist.
Likewise, an agnostic who thinks they are not an atheist is confused. They lack belief in god(s), thats all atheism is.
Theism = from the greek “theos”, meaning “god”.
Atheism = from the greek “a” meaning “without” and “theos” meaning “god”.[/quote]

First of all..."atheism" came into the English language BEFORE "theism"...so it could not have been derived via that.

It did come from the Greek through the French...and actually derives: "a" without + "theos" a god...and means WITHOUT A GOD.

It has nothing to do with "belief."

Then in classic philosophy the word was parsed into “weak” and “strong” (and eventually even more uses) in the formulation of specific philisophical arguments, which is what S is trying to explain to you.
Then, anti-theists who were ignorant of what atheism meant but had heard theists use it as a negation or opposite of religion (and as a word encompassing immorality or certain beliefs about religion) began using it in an equally confused manner to refer to themselves.
It has become a misused label in social movements, but these are bastardised uses that added meanings to the word to service an agenda.

Under any circumstances...I assert that anyone who uses the word "atheist" in any way as part of a self-description...is asserting either a "belief" that no gods exist...or asserting that it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does.

I am agnostic on the question. There is no way I see to determine that it is more likely one or the other.

I AM NOT AN ATHEIST.

Fooloso4
272
The limits of reason has been a central topic of philosophy at least since Socrates. Kant's Critique of Pure Reason provides a rational defense of the choice of faith. He saw rational proofs of the existence of God, however, as a source of disbelief because rationally they fail. Reason can neither prove nor disprove the existence of God or resolve the other antinomies. Since these questions cannot be resolved by reason that leaves room for faith.

A larger question that informs such discussions is whether the world is rational and thus fully understandable through the use of reason. Is that a reasonable assumption? Does the world exist because existence is rational and non-existence is irrational? Is what happens governed by reason? Or is reason just our way of making sense of things? — Fooloso4

Not only can we NOT prove or disprove the existence or non-existence of gods using logic or reason or math or science...

...we cannot even narrow it down to "it is more likely no gods" or "it is more likely at least one god exists."

Some people just cannot grasp that.

S
8.7k

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is? — Frank Apisa


Ah yes, the reading between the lines thing. I meant a serious response, not just using you for sarcasm. If you want a serious response to something I said, you'd need to up your game. — S

My game is just fine. Things are working exactly the way I want them to work

That seems to be bothering you.

Or perhaps you are just pretending to be bothered to make me laugh.

Not just, "NO, that's just your OPINION! NO! That's NOT atheism! NO! It ISN'T TRIVIAL! NO! I AM NOT SHOUTING!!!!".

Perhaps you ought not to play so close to the edge, S. You seem in real danger of falling off.

I mean, are you a teenager or something? — S.

I was born in August of 1936. I'll be 83 this summer.

S
8.7k

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it. — Frank Apisa


Okay. Understood.

I hereby announce that from this point onwards, I will just do things! — S

For someone who thinks I am on "a level not worth responding to"...

...you sure are doing a lot of responding, S.

Wonder why that is?

DingoJones
586
↪Frank Apisa


If you do NOT believe in (a)god (some KIND of theist), then you are some kind OF atheist. — DingoJones

Why?

Because you say so?

Agnosticism is not a third option, it is a specific position that does not entail a belief in theism of some kind, therefore it is atheism of some kind. — Dingo

Why are you asserting that?

Where does that come from?

That IS ALL ATHEISM is, a LACK of BELIEF in a god or gods. — Dinjo

Not sure why you think that...but I am saying it is incorrect.

My suspicions are that using "atheist" as a descriptor involves a significant MORE than that.

You can WITHHOLD judgement do to lack of evidence or whatever you LIKE, BUT you still lack BELIEF and THAT is the qualifier FOR atheism.

ALL atheists lack a "belief" in any gods.

NOT ALL people lacking a "belief" in any gods...are atheists.

Harry Hindu
1.8k
The only reason someone would abandon logic and reason is that they don't find the conclusions of logic and reason consoling. In other words, they have an emotional attachment to a certain assumption and if logic and reason don't reinforce that assumption, then logic and reason aren't good for reaching all conclusions. — Harry Hindu

I agree.

S
8.7k
↪Frank Apisa
You don't seem on a level worth responding to, so I'm going to end it on that note. You don't really take in what I say, you just vigorously deny and effectively reinforce your own personal semantics. — S

Do whatever you want to do.

No need to announce it.

Just do it.

I'm not.

Please consider the qualifier I used..."IF" KNOWLEDGE IS POSSIBLE."

Knowledge, even of self...may not be possible.

Everything, including this thing I call "me"...may be an illusion. An illusion "of what" I am not sure.

Even if knowledge is possible, I MAY BE sure of me...but even that is not certain.

S
8.7k

Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is. — Frank Apisa


Your "opinion" is wrong. — S

No...It is not.

You did NOT answer my question!

And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that. — Frank Apisa


That is a false accusation. I did answer your question. You asked what I mean when I use "atheism", and I told you. Once again, it means atheism of either the strong or weak variety. (It doesn't exclusively mean one variety).

You're now moving the goalposts by referring to a different question you never actually asked me. But to answer it, I am a weak atheist, as you should already know, because I've already made that obvious to you.

And reading between the lines is useful and requires a certain level of intelligence. It helps in philosophical discussions to have that required level of intelligence and to put it to use. — S

My "accusation" was not false...but now you have answered it...and we will leave it at that.

As for having the required intelligence...I am possessed of that.

That schmarmy crap is for amateurs, S. Get away from it.

Yes. — Frank Apisa


And...? Are you suggesting that you found no credibly sourced statistic? — S

I not only have found no sourced statistic...I have found evidence that VERY INTELLIGENT people are not atheists. In fact, it appears as though MOST of the very intelligent people who have lived...were not atheists.

I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa


No, that wasn't my point, although I said that I recalled seeing that statistic. And the relevant point of mine which I was referring to when I said that you were ignoring my point was my point about the distinction without a difference between agnosticism and weak atheism. — S

You are just muddying the waters here. YOUR POINT...the one to which I responded...was what I said.

In any case...the difference between agnostic and weak atheism...IS CONSIDERABLE...although you people who want to identify as weak atheists pretend that it isn't.

Okay...that is your right.

It is possible to be an atheist, and more specifically a weak atheist. So if, when they say that they're an agnostic, there's no logically relevant distinction between saying that and saying that they're an atheist, more specifically a weak atheist, then the distinction is trivial. Personal semantics are trivial. Logic is more important. — S

It is NOT trivial. The difference between your "weak atheism" and my "agnosticism" is HUGE. If you cannot see that, perhaps logic is not your forte.

"Angry...rant?"

You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part? — Frank Apisa


Yes, and not without reason. Your tone, what you said, the all-caps... — S

Like I said!

In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa


Putting something in all-caps doesn't make it any less wrong. — S

You saying I am wrong...does not make me wrong. That is a much more important distinction.

At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"... — Frank Apisa


That misses the point because you are more fixated on your personal semantics than the logic of what I'm saying. — S

No it doesn't.

...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT. — Frank Apisa


Why are you shouting? — S

I am not shouting...I am emphasizing.

If you do not like it...go talk with someone else.

And you have now, although perhaps you will childishly deny it on the basis of your personal semantics. I'm more mature than that, so I don't really care whether you call me an atheist or an agnostic. I am what I am. — S

If you want to think you are more mature than I...be my guest. If you want to think you are Napoleon...be my guest.

How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant. — Frank Apisa


You fit the definition of a weak atheist, whether you like it or not, and associating that position with weakmindedness just because of the similarity in wording is childish.

Ahhh...you do not like that when someone gives you a taste of your own medicine.

Okay.

In any case, I am not an atheist of any sort. And I do not even use the descriptor "agnostic" any more.

I use this:

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.

Not sure you have a hard grasp of solipsism...but I agree with the essence of your position.

Solipsism gets lots of scorn in philosophical discussions...but it seems right on the button to me.

If "knowledge" is possible...all I can be sure of is ME.

I see other stuff out there, but while I am confident (perhaps unadvisedly so) that I exist...ALL of what else seems to exist MAY BE nothing but an illusion within ME.

S
8.7k

Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary. — Frank Apisa


No, it's only useful if it's necessary, and it isn't in this case. — S

Perhaps not in your opinion. But in my opinion, it is.

I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism. — Frank Apisa


This isn't a discussion specifically about my kind of atheism. And I did answer your question, so long as you're capable of reading between the lines. I told you what the term means, which is obviously how I use it. When I say that I'm an atheist, I'm saying that I'm an atheist of either the strong or weak variety. And I can further clarify if need be, but that's not always necessary. — S

You did NOT answer my question!

And one should not have to "read between the lines." The lines should be sufficient in a philosophical discussion. There are two distinct and discrete choices when using the word "athist"...and you are saying you are one of them. I'm asking which one. If you choose not to answer...just say so. I accept that.

I don't. — Frank Apisa


Well, have you bothered to look into it? — S

Yes.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists. — Frank Apisa


That ignores my point entirely. — S

I disagree. Your point was: "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists."

What I said applies directly to that.

Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as nonintellectual as THEIST.

Anyone using "atheist" as a descriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

IT IS NOT TRIVIAL. — Frank Apisa


The distinction I pointed out is indeed trivial, and your angry semantic rant which misses the point doesn't change that.

I don't care if you'd rather use the terms more narrowly, less usefully, less representative of how they're actually used. You aren't dictator of language use. — S

"Angry...rant?"

You suppose that to be an angry rant on my part.

Oh, well. You will have to live and learn about that!

In any case, the distinction IS NOT TRIVIAL.

At no point do I suggest "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one does"...

...AND I HAVE NEVER MET OR SPOKEN WITH AN ATHEIST WHO DOES NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THAT SENTIMENT.

How about you...or are you going to run away from the question again?

I am NOT an atheist (weak minded or strong)...and I consider that to be significant.

S
8.7k

Anyway...I suspect that as many intelligent people would gravitate toward "agnostic"...as would choose "atheist."

Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil deGrasse Tyson all described themselves as agnostic. — Frank Apisa


If the meaning of "agnosticism" is basically the same as that of "weak atheism", which is obviously a type of atheism, then that specific distinction is a distinction without a difference. It is trivial. So in such cases, it wouldn't matter whether they used "agnostic" or "atheist". — S

Please...do not give me that "trivial" stuff.

There is no way I will identify as ATHEIST...which I consider as unintellectual as THEIST.

Anyone using "atheist" as a discriptor or label...has decided that "no gods exist" or "it is more likely that no gods exist than that at least one god exists."

That is blind guessing...just as "a GOD exists" or "it is more likely that a GOD exists than that no gods exist."

I do not do that guessing stuff on that question.

IT IS NOT TRIVIAL.

"Atheism" is an almost useless word. One must give an explanation of what one means when using it. Some people intend to mean " a lack of belief in any deities." Some intend it to mean "a belief that no gods exist."

What do you mean when you use "atheism?" — Frank Apisa


The term covers both. And we generally understand the gist of it. You don't always need to get into specifics, and this seems like a case in point. Atheism is a broad position which covers both strong and weak versions. — S

Correct. One does not ALWAYS need to get into specifics. But in a discussion in a Philosophy Forum...it almost always IS useful, if not actually necessary.

I notice you did not respond to my question. That makes it of questionable value for me in a discussion with you about YOUR atheism.

I also question your assertion, "More educated, affluent people are more likely to be atheists." — Frank Apisa


I recall seeing this statistic before.

I don't.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Neil DeGasse Tyson, Richard Feynman...are/were educated (some consider them geniuses)...and all were agnostics.

Isaac Newton, Thomas Aquinas, Thomas Jefferson...and a host of other educated individuals were NOT atheists.

sime
289
I am under the impression that those who discount presentism do so, because they interpret presentism as a variant of realism about time and causality, where the ontological basis of that temporal realism is the present. — sime

I suspect you are making a mistake with that impression, Sime.

I suspect some people, like Devans for example, do it in quest of a goal that must be reachedfor some reason.

In Devans case, I think the goal is to get to, "There is a GOD."

He seems to be doing it by pretending not to be attempting to get there.

He is saying that he just wants to get to "The universe is a creation." (One avenue is by discounting presentism...which he considers proof that "the universe" is not eternal/infinite...and therefore (?) is a creation.

From that, he will extrapolate that there has to be a creator...and from that, I expect he is heading for an Aquinas close of, "And that 'creator' all people call God."

I may be wrong, but if there were a way to obtain the truth on the matter, I would bet huge bucks on it.

Take talking serpents and donkeys and a water walking Jesus.

If your faith tells you they are all real, and logic and reason does not tell you that your belief is completely wrong, then you are allowing your faith in the supernatural to guide you instead of logic and reason.

If you are doing that then I do not mind parting company with you are you have allowed your mind to go into intellectual and moral dissonance.

If you are that then I will give you cab fare to leave ASAP. You, as this link indicates, are a disgrace to the human race.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=related — Gnostic Christian Bishop

I am NOT a theist.

IF you were saying what you wrote...you are essentially saying that theists are "wrong." That means you are saying "there are no gods."

If you are saying that...we are not in agreement. I do not know if there are any gods or not...and neither do you.

In the meantime, I thought I was speaking with an adult. Apparently I was incorrect. I apologize for the mistake.

Gnostic Christian Bishop
44
Faith closes the mind. It is pure idol worship.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Regards
DL — Gnostic Christian Bishop

Nice commentary. I was with you right up until the end.

Then it got a bit murky...with that, "We cannot show our faith based friends that they are wrong..."

Did you mean to write, "We cannot show our faith based friends that they MAY BE wrong?"

Or did you mean what you wrote?

If you meant what you wrote...we part company.

if a man or woman had extremely advanced technology and some how managed to pass into higher dimensions (there is a youtube video called "10 dimensions explained"). I believe this would be a logical reason to say there is a god. — James Statter

And you are certainly free to do so.

I, on the other hand, would say being able to do that has absolutely no impact on the question, "Does at least one god exist?"

The low entropy of the universe points to a start of time which would rule out presentism. — Devans99

I suspect that for you, the fact that elephants have tusks...or oak trees grow from acorns...points to a start of time.

"A start of time" is an essential to where you want to go. By now, you should be able to see that...and you should be able to see the influence that predicament presents to clear thinking on the issue.

That aside, however, whence cometh "the low entropy of the universe?"

What is "low" entropy for a universe?

What is "high" entropy for a universe?

What is a moderate...or average...entropy for a universe?

And how did you calculate all this?

I, for one, have no problem with starting at 50% - 50%. My problem is with the nonsense that atheists, theists, and "agnostic tending toward deism" add to the problem to get at something other than 50% - 50%. — Frank Apisa


For the God question, it's not as if there's no data to go on. 100% it's the case that there's no evidence of a God, not to mention that the very idea of it is absurd/incoherent. — Terrapin Station

Lemme ask you this, TS:

There is 100% NO EVIDENCE of any sentient life on any planet circling the nearest 25 stars to Sol. Not one iota of evidence that there is any sentient life on any of those planets.

What does that tell us about the probability of sentient life on any of those planets?

↪Terrapin Station
...is the fact that we know the distribution of answers to unknown boolean questions is definitely not 100/0 or 0/100. We know that boolean questions have distribution spaces for their answers. We know that distributions on average follow the normal distribution. So therefore we know that choosing 50%/50% is statistically the most likely correct thing to do. — Devans99

I, for one, have no problem with starting at 50% - 50%. My problem is with the nonsense that atheists, theists, and "agnostic tending toward deism" add to the problem to get at something other than 50% - 50%.

There is absolutely nothing of substance...nothing unambiguous...that can be added to the initial 50% - 50% assumption that makes sense.

YOU ARE CORRECT....it does start at 50% - 50%.

It ends up there also.

No, if "atheist" is a general term such as we are describing (I'm not 100% convinced it is, which is why I said "maybe"), then its intended job is to describe something that is not precisely defined, so it describes that something imprecisely. Your reference to (intentional) "confuse and obscure" looks like a simple attempt to discredit the idea and the existence of general terms. But I'm sure I misunderstand...? — Pattern-chaser

Perhaps I am "misunderstanding."

Why would someone want to have a discussion about anything...and insure that the matter being discussed is obscure?

If a person identifies as an "atheist" and speaks of "atheistic" positions on an issue...why on Earth would you want those positions to be ill-defined?

Fact is, the "atheistic" position on the question, "Are there any gods?"...is not clearly defined. So if what one is attempting to obtain in a discussion of the issue is an individuals position...the reply of "I am an atheist" is of no help. (Neither, in fact, is a reply of "I am an agnostic.")

"I assert that no gods exist anywhere" IS defining...and IS clear. (And is bullshit, but we'll leave that for now.)

"I assert that I do not know if any gods exist" IS defining...and IS clear.

So...what is your point...what are you proposing here?

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.

So I understand whereof you speak. — Frank Apisa


:up: So, instead of being "useless", maybe "atheist" is a general term, with all the vagueness that enables it to do its intended job? — Pattern-chaser

Yeah, I guess if its "intended job" is to confuse and obscure...I imagine it does.

Not sure why anyone would use it that way, but...

Be sure to let me know that you have started such a discussion. I will participate.

I'd be happy to discuss this as well, it's really interesting. — SethRy

Great. I also find it interesting.

I suppose a god exists. I acknowledge my suppositions can possibly be wrong, but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief. — Seth

Okay.

I was a practicing Catholic at one time...but my position on the issue now is:

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 will also have my take on an argument for God, specifically. It will tackle religious pragmatism and the underlying paradoxical characteristics towards the indication of flaws in faith. — Seth

Fine.

For the record, I see the words "believe/belief" to be a substitute for "suppose/assume/guess."

I see "faith" as an insistence that the supposition/assumption/guess has to be adhered to no matter what...sorta the thing you shared when you wrote, "...but nothing can be so compelling to change my belief."

What do you see as the most compelling reason for supposing a god exists?

Okay, you cannot simplify it further. (I'd just like to discuss this a bit. I mean no insult. Just attempting to understand YOUR position a bit better.)

Obviously you suppose a god exists. (I think we can agree on that.)

And equally obviously you suppose you know the nature of the god...via scripture and the traditions of the Catholic Church. (I think we can agree on that, also.)

Do you acknowledge that your suppositions could be wrong...or is that something that you are unable, for one reason or another, to acknowledge?

I am a theist. I believe in God and I am in a religion - so we have different perspectives. — SethRy

Here we go with the "what do you mean by that" question. (The "believe in" construct is unfathomable to me.)

When you say, "I believe in God" (with a capital 'G' and without the use of the indefinite article)...

...are you actually saying, "It is my guess (or assumption/supposition) that at least one god exists...and that another guess (assumption/supposition) is that the nature of that god has been revealed to me via some scripture or another?"

Are you saying you know what pleases or offends the god you guess/assume/suppose exists?

↪Frank Apisa
I think you are making rather too much of it; it is just a probability estimate not an actual answer to the question of whether there was a creator. — Devans99

Well...since my position is 180 degrees out of synch with yours, I don't think discussing it is making too much of it.

But if you would prefer not to attempt a probability estimate on what I asked, I understand and accept.

As to probability of new philosophical discoveries coming up in a philosophical forum, I would say it is non-zero. I would not bother doing this if I did not think there was a chance we could get somewhere. — Devans

I would say it is non-zero also.

BUT of this magnitude? Of a discovery that goes beyond what the best of the best have been able to produce...and so easily "shown?"

Really!

You are just plain wrong. I would not be standing by my arguments if anyone had come up with any valid counter arguments. — Devans99

Devans...let me ask you directly something I have asked you directly (albeit, sarcastically) previously.

Make one of your probability estimates on this issue:

The greatest minds that have ever existed on planet Earth have devoted themselves to consideration of the question of whether or not a CREATOR of what we humans call "the universe"...exists.

And they have come up short.

Now here you are in an Internet forum...claiming YOU can show (in a short paragraph) that what we humans call "the universe" not only was created, but that logic and reason dictate that OF NECESSITY it had to have been created. (All of which makes a CREATOR a given.)

Would you just apply that formula you just applied to a MUCH more difficult problem to this one...

...and tell us what you see the probability estimate to be for this being so.

I have a problem with the personal descriptors used in religious or philosophical discussions, Pattern.

The word "atheist" for instance, has so many different meanings that it becomes virtually useless in these discussions. Agnostic seems to be heading that same way.

So I understand whereof you speak.

In a religious discussion, the words "believe" or "belief" drive me nuts. (Although that probably is more a chip shot than a drive.) And when used as part of "believe in"...I shudder.

We'll discuss those things as the thread moves on.

If those "blind guesses" are correct, does it matter that at least one person insists on them? — Shed

A blind guess that at least one god exists...and a blind guess that no gods exist...

...are by their nature mutually exclusive.

One, by any human standard, has to be correct.

But, yes, it does matter, because there seems to be no way to determine which is correct.