I'm only asking for the definition of "exist" as you've used in the question above.

Below is the philosophical definition:

Exist: Existence is the ability of an entity to interact (detectable) with physical or mental reality. In philosophy, it refers to the ontological property of being.

Since detectability isn't part of your definition of "exist" it means your definition is different. I only ask you to state your definition of "exist". — TheMadFool

First of all...that "definition" you offered is something taken from Wikipedia...and has the following disclaimer included:
This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page. (Learn how and when to remove these template messages)
This article's lead section may not adequately summarize its contents. (March 2012)
This article needs additional citations for verification. (April 2009)

I could not agree more with that disclaimer. The "definition" is an absurdity.

Secondly, I HAVE offered my definition.

Exist...is EVERYTHING THAT IS...regardless of whether it can interact (detectable) with physical or mental reality.

If a thing exists...IT EXISTS.

Are there things that exist that humans cannot detect?

I do not KNOW, but I would bet huge sums that there are.

We humans are the currently dominant life-form on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among hundred of billions of galaxies in what we humans call "the universe" but which may be just a nondescript hunk of matter in a gazillion other universes.

So I ask my question again, TMF. Are you saying it is impossible for things to exist that are not detectable by humans?

If you are not, we are in agreement that when we say a thing exists...it means that it IS...without regard to whether we humans can detect it or interact with it.

Banno
8.2k
↪Frank Apisa What? Not following your post at all. I did not say that philosophers should not consider god. — Banno

I didn't say you said that you did. (Mostly I agree with the posts you make, Banno...and I agree with the underscore of this OP.)

My argument goes to the question of particularization...by mentioning "god" (not a god) and ascribing characteristics...omniscience and omnipotence...you seem to be limiting yourself to one particular god.

Gods, on the other hand, MAY be suitable tools for philosophical explanations...whatever you mean by that...IF ANY GODS DO IN FACT EXIST.

If any gods exist...they may be suitable tools for ALL philosophical explanations.

No big deal, we do not know if any gods exist or not...and probably should proceed as though none do for the purposes of establishing our moral and societal codes.

In any case, those threads you mentioned were started by one person...am I correct?

Is it possible you just have a problem with the kinds of threads that person starts?

Banno
8.2k
One aspect of the debate on forum quality that might be addressed is the preponderance of low quality thread of a theological bent.

Here's a few titles, by way of example:
Was Judas a hero and most trusted disciple, or a traitor?
Is Yahweh breaking an objective moral tenet?
An Argument Against Eternal Damnation
Was Jesus aware of being Yahweh?
Does Yahweh/Jesus live by the Golden Rule?
How much is Christ's life, miracles, and resurrection a fraudulent myth?

These threads take scripture or revelation as a starting point for discussion; theology, not philosophy.

God is not a suitable tool for philosophical explanation because god is omnipotent and omniscient. — Banno

With this comment, you are playing into the hands of people against whom you seem to be arguing.

The notion of whether or not gods exist...IS a worthy consideration of philosophers. But with this statement, you are arguing against one particular notion of a god (God, rather than a god) and suggesting that doing so is unworthy of philosophical consideration.

Frankly, considerations of (the possibility of gods or of no gods) do fall into the realm of philosophical intercourse. Fact is, until relatively recent times, it was the sole focus of philosophers.

Just sayin'.

jorndoe
913 — jorndoe

How very often I have seen the sentiment you illustrated in your post, Jorn.

"To those who believe in God, no explanation is needed."

Reworded to be more accurate, it becomes a bit more problematic, though.

How's this sound:

TO THOSE WHO BLINDLY GUESS THERE IS A GOD, NO EXPLANATION IS NEEDED.

Has a different ring, right?

"God almost certainly exists" is a probability assertion.

There is absolutely NO WAY to arrive at that conclusion using LOGIC, REASON, SCIENCE, OR MATH.

This is an interesting thread, especially the side-bars. But the initial assertion is nothing more than, "I 'believe' (in) GOD."

Okay...you "believe" a god exists...and that that god is the god you worship.

So...do you think that The Godfather or The Godfather II was the better movie?

InPitzotl
220
Anyone can justify an opinion...and the strength of the justification is almost always strong to the person doing the justification.
— Frank Apisa
But that's a false front... people with "opinions" like this don't generally hold the opinions because of the justifications they give; rather, they give justifications for the opinions because they hold the opinions. The primary error people commit here is the high burden they place on discarding their opinions and the low burden they place on keeping them. So they tip the scales of the strength of justification, generally, to the highest degree possible; they require no justification to keep the opinion; but they require the highest burden to discard it. That's what's conveyed with "change my mind"... it's the notion of "I don't need to justify my belief to keep it... rather, you need to make it impossible to believe it before I discard it". That is the opposite of belief warranted based on the strength of justification; it is, rather, belief warranted for its own sake. — InPitzotl

You sounded as though you were going to challenge the statement of mine that you quoted...

...but you didn't. Your commentary comes across like, "They don't do that...and the reason they do is..."

It is my OPINION that one way to improve philosophical discussions would be to insist that the words "believe" and "belief" not be used except to comment on the absurdity of using them.
— Frank Apisa
Maybe there's something to this. But I'm not necessarily convinced this would thwart the problem I see above. I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people of belief for its own sake. — InPitzoti

I am not aiming to "thwart" the problem...I am aiming to improve the discussion.

In any case, in your response you the expression "of belief for its own sake."


How does your thought sound expressed this way: I would like to see this principle applied in practice to see how effective it is in disarming people who make blind guesses about things just for the sake of making blind guesses about them.

Devans, then, is just a waste of time. — tim wood

Could be.

I try to converse with everyone, but some conversations ARE harder than others.

In my opinion, any discussion of whether any gods exist or not...

...is pretty much a waste of time.

But I am in those kinds of discussions all the time, which belies that opinion.

Oh well.

BOTTOM LINE in my opinion: We do not know and cannot logically estimate the likelihood in either direction.

ANYONE reading this thread quickly realizes that NO ONE HERE can show that "it is more likely that 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"...using science and/or logic.

Only a few are willing to acknowledge they cannot. Most want to insist they can, despite the fact that none have actually done so.

None of this is unexpected, because the greatest minds that have ever lived on the planet have tried over the years...and also have not done so. To suppose it could be done here in a rather small Internet forum by what are essentially amateurs, is not astonishing.

If someone actually could do it...the Nobel Committee would undoubtedly offer an award to the person doing it. No Nobel Prize earned here.

A bit of a disclaimer speech... the degree to which a belief is warranted is equivalent to the strength of the justification of the belief. Justifications could possibly be a bit difficult; one's not always aware of why they believe what they believe. But that should the focus. Do you agree? — InPitzotl

I don't.

"Belief" for the most part, is nothing more than a guess or an opinion. But it is never, ever, under any circumstances KNOWLEDGE. (This is not to say it is not correct. Some guesses and opinions are correct, but they are never knowledge.)

On issues of importance to most philosophical discussions, a "belief" is nothing more than an opinion. Anyone can justify an opinion...and the strength of the justification is almost always strong to the person doing the justification.

On issue of importance to most "religious" discussions, a "belief" is most often nothing more than a blind guess. Anyone attempting justification of a blind guess deserves a smile...unless they insist. At that point they deserve a loud laugh.

It is my OPINION that one way to improve philosophical discussions would be to insist that the words "believe" and "belief" not be used except to comment on the absurdity of using them.

Okay...thanks.

Michael, I suspect you may have deleted my post here. In another thread where I participate, you mentioned deleting posts for various reasons.
"FYI, I've deleted some posts that were just insults and any posts that replied to them (as they won't make sense anymore). Please refresh the page so that you don't waste time replying to a post that has been deleted as your replies will just be deleted as well."

Why did you delete mine here?

It was important...and said something that should be said whenever the question of power is being discussed. Just because a meme is part of the culture as a result of television history does not make invaluable...nor inappropriate.

Tim Wood above mentions, "I hold that there is "power" in knowledge..."

That post of mine went directly to that.

I would like your permission to re-post that clip.

.

Kenosha Kid
307
There a many of signs of fine-tuning of the universe for life
— Devans99

Only if they are interpreted as being teleologically fine-tuned, which they are not. Hence the circularity. You find God in the evidence to support your proof of his existence, be he there or not. Which he's not.

The chances of the universe supporting life by purely a co-incidence are very remote... That correspondingly makes the chances of the universe supporting life by design very high... and by accident is exceedingly unlikely.
— Devans99

But these are arguments from ignorance. We do not know why the laws of nature are as they are, nor do we know if our universe is special. Leading theory has that it is not, and that theory at least has the features of being a) possible and b) mechanically worked out, which the God hypothesis is not blessed with.

The possibility of inflation theory being right not only rules out the non-existent necessity of an intelligent first cause, it renders whatever back-of-the-envelope estimate you have of our improbability meaningless.

Finally, any number, no matter how small, is large compared with zero. Even if we agree that the probability of this universe existing by chance is one in a trillion, that can still be (and is) much larger than the probability of it being created by a nonexistent creator. You cannot assume that God creating the world is more probable than accident in your proof that God exists. That would, again, be circular.

If we assume that God does not exist, the probability of him having created the universe is zero, compared to which sheer chance is good odds. — Kenosha Kid

You are correct in what you infer, that there is NO UNAMBIGUOUS evidence of fine-tuning.


The problem with your argument is the use of the singular "God" (and the unnecessary use of the singular masculine pronouns "he" and "him.")

Many gods may exists; a single god may exist; no gods may exist.

Your guess about that is no better than Devans...and your arguments in support of your guess no more sound or logical.

Firstly, you raise a good point. What's the difference between detectability and detection and how is it relevant to our discussion?

The conventional definition of existence is based on detectability but knowledge of existence is tied to detection. If I posit the existence of a thing, say, x then, that x has to be detectable but for me to go from ignorance of the existence of x to knowledge of the existence of x, detection of x is paramount. — TheMadFool

You can posit things that CANNOT be detected...and may not even be detectable.

You can posit things like the Red Queen in Alice in Wonderland.

I can actually posit things that are POSSIBLE...that cannot be detected.**

**Detected meaning perceived or reasonably inferred by human senses.

You said a thing can exist whether it can be detected or not i.e. you reject the feature of existence that has to do with detectability; — TheMadFool

I certainly am saying it is POSSIBLE. I am the consummate agnostic, so I am not saying "it is" but I am saying "it is possible." Are you saying it is impossible for things to exist that are not detectable by humans?

If so, please explain why you are saying that.

in other words you're claiming something doesn't have to be detectable for it to exist and if so, if you were to claim something, say z, exists, you're not committed to z being detectable and that means your definition of "exists" is not the usual one we're familiar with, no? All I'm asking then is what's this other definition of "exists" you're using? — TheMadFool

Let's be careful about our wording. I have tried to use "detectable by humans." If I have led you to suppose I mean "not detectable at all"...I apologize. I have NO IDEA if there are things that exist that are totally undetectable at all. If, for instance, a GOD who refuses to be detectable to anyone or anything other than itself...IT WOULD EXIST even though it cannot be detected (except by itself.)

I really wish you would make one thing clear, TMF.

Are you asserting that the only things that can exist are things that humans can detect?

You've made the claim that a thing can exist "whether we can detect it or not...". An issue arises in your usage of the word "exist" because the conventional definition of "exist" has to do with detectability with the senses/instruments and since you're denying detectability - the necessary criterion for existence - you're essentially rejecting the definition of "exist/existence" as normally understood which implies that when you say "ANYTHING that exists...whether we can detect it or not...EXISTS, you're using a different definition of "exist". What is this definition? That's all I'm asking. — TheMadFool

If there are definitions of "exists" that require human confirmation...it is idiotic. And I suspect you are confusing "detectablility" with "detection."

If there is life on any planet in a distant galaxy ...it EXISTS regardless of the fact that we can detect it or not. If there are other dimensions of existence that we cannot detect...it exists whether we can detect it or not. The fact that we have not detected something does not mean it does not exist...nor that it cannot be detected.

Other galaxies exist...even though it was less than one hundred years ago that we discovered they did.

You said you were not playing a game.

I suspect you might be...even though you seem unable to detect that you are.

Devans99
2.6k
ABSOLUTELY NOT.
— Frank Apisa

Why? Knowledge is interesting!

Nothing is certain in this world, so we must resort to probability as our only hope for true knowledge. I find it strange that you will not at least hazard a guess on this important issue. — Devans99

I do not find it strange at all.

Here is my take on the issue...which I have posted several times already:

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.

what do you see wrong or objectionable about that?

Devans99
2.6k
Some guess there is a GOD.

Some guess there are GODS.

Some guess there are no gods.
— Frank Apisa

Can you assign your estimated probabilities to each option? — Devans99

ABSOLUTELY NOT.

TheMadFool
6.2k
Do the same with the word "exist."
— Frank Apisa

As far as I can tell, the conventional definition of "exist/existence" does have a matching experience - we can say of things that we can sense/detect that they exist but when you say...

Does it mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect?
— Frank Apisa

...you're entertaining the idea of existence that can't be sensed/detected i.e. you're tampering with the conventional, comprehensible, definition of "exist/existence" or, more accurately, you're proposing an altogther different definition. What is this new definition? That's all what I want to know. — TheMadFool

I am saying that exists means to exist. ANYTHING that exists...whether we can detect it or not...EXISTS.

Surely you do not think that we humans know everything that exists, right?

There may be things and dimensions of time and spaces that EXIST...that we cannot detect.

Not sure if you are playing a game for some reason, but "what exists" is...WHAT EXISTS.

On this question...NOTHING WRONG WITH "BELIEFS" AT ALL.

On this question, "beliefs" are essentially guesses about what IS.

Some guess there is a GOD.

Some guess there are GODS.

Some guess there are no gods.

Whatever.

180 Proof
1.3k
Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."

If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."
— Frank Apisa
:up:

I do not think anyone here begrudges you [Devans99] any belief you happen to believe in, but you have been offering them as substantive for really a long time across many threads in what amounts to a long-term one-note samba of nonsense.
— tim wood
:100:

Well I prefer to make a rough estimate rather than just saying 'I don't know'.
— Devans99
Either you don't know that you don't know (Dunning-Kruger effect) or you know you don't know and lack the integrity, or honesty, to admit it; so which is it, Devans?

And your counter argument?
— Devans99
You've not made a sound, or evidentiary, argument for the 'existence of g/G' yet (as tim wood, Banno, I et al have established), which brings Hitchens' Razor comes to mind:

What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence.
— duly Hitchslaps Devon99 — 180 Proof

We are in a lot more agreement on this, 180, than I thought we'd be able to get.

Thanks.

You have to put yourself in the mind of Thomas - this was before the discovery of biological evolution and they still thought the earth was the centre of the universe. I think he made very reasonable conclusions with the amount of evidence he was working with. — Devans99

Aquinas made good ARGUMENTS. His conclusions sucked.

Essentially he was saying that things happened because of "God"...rather than "We do not know why it happened."

Mistake made by many.

On the question of whether at least one god exists or not:

You can easily use logic to conclude "I do not know."

It is impossible to use logic to conclude "There are no gods" "There is a god" "It is more likely that there is at least one god" or "It is more likely that there are no gods."

Yep, agreed. I do agree with Aquinas on his cosmological argument. Another way of saying that is that nothing can move by itself since it has to be moved by something else. So it's either turtle power, or something more intelligent. — 3017amen

Aquinas ended each of his arguments with variations of, "And this we all call God."

If he had ended his arguments logically...he would have written, "And this we all accept as an unknown."

The "This we all call God" was gratuitous, self-serving, and frankly, silly.

TheMadFool
6.2k
How do you define "define?"
— Frank Apisa

You wouldn't be able to ask this question without knowing the defintion of "how", "do", "you", and since you did ask the question, I'd like ask the question back at you.

If you must know, defining is simply the process of taking some aspect of experience and matching it to a word. — TheMadFool

[/quote]

Then I can say the same thing back at you.

Your question was...how do you define exist?

You wouldn't be able to ask that question without knowing the definition of "how" "do" "you."

So...apparently you can take some aspect of experience and match it to the word "define."

Do the same with the word "exist."

My experience tell me that anything that IS...exists...whether I personally KNOW it exists or not. I personally do not know atoms exist...but apparently they ARE. I personally do not know what kinds of planets exist in orbit around the nearest 20 starts to Sol...but apparently they ARE.
There are all sorts of things that EXIST...that I do not know about. In fact, my experience tells me that there apparently are all sorts of things that EXIST...that no humans know about.

Which brings us back to my answer to your question about "the universe"...and your response to my answer.

You asked, "What is imprecise about the word "universe"?

I responded, "EVERYTHING. Does it (the universe) mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect?"

If you approach the issue from that angle, one in which you question the definition of existence as only those things that can be sensed or detected, you'll need to provide a sensible definition of "exist". How would you define "exist/existence"? — TheMadFool

Before I respond to that question...I have to ask YOU a question you may think snarky. It is not. It is essential to my response.

How do you define "define?"

What is imprecise about the word "universe"? — TheMadFool

EVERYTHING.

Does it mean "everything that exists"...or does it mean "the stuff humans** are able to sense or detect?"

**Humans: The currently dominant species on a nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among several hundreds of billions of galaxies that humans can detect.

Isaac
2.4k
Why hasn't this shite been consigned to the fairy-story section (or philosophy of religion, as it's optimistically called)? I usually have this stuff turned off so that I can pretend the site is a more serious one than it really is. — Isaac

What are you saying here, Isaac?

Are you saying the existence of gods is impossible?

Devans99
2.6k
So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses
— Frank Apisa

We cannot even prove that we are not brains in vats... thanks to Rene Descartes. So we must resort to probability on questions like this. I believe the probability of God's existence is high, but technically I must remain agnostic forever. — Devans99

I am agnostic forever...and at age 84 in 6 weeks, "forever" doesn't seem that far away.

As for your comment, "I believe the probability of God's existence is high, "

MY TAKE:

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.

Whether there is at least one god...or that there are no gods...

...is an unknown. It is something that cannot be determined by logic or science.

The question of whether it is more likely that there is at least one god...or if it is more liekly that there are no gods...

...ALSO IS AN UNKNOWN...and cannot be determined by logic or science.

We would all be doing logic and science a favor by leaving them out of this discussion. There is absolutely NOTHING WRONG with making a blind guess in either direction...and one of those guesses is probably correct. (Almost certainly correct.)

So make guesses...but don't suppose they are anything more than guesses.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa I had to give you another chance to prove me/us wrong and again you whiffed.

Good on Sunlight :up: - s/he knows flypaper when s/he sees it. — 180 Proof

I did not wiff...and your protestations of being charitable sound like the stuff Trump spews during his "speeches."

If Sunlight wants to discuss this issue with me...I am here to discuss it.

You really shouldn't let the fact that you are as much a "believer" as any theist bother you so. Bad for your blood pressure.

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Ah, my friend, I didn't name names; now you're just telling on your own self and projecting that on me as bad manners and whatnot. But anyway, Frank, since you went there - casting your usual morning aspersions - how about proving me/us wrong about you and "raise the bar" up to Sunlight's height. If you dare. If you ain't too scared. :smirk: — 180 Proof

Why don't you man up, if you are able, and acknowledge that the remark was aimed at me? No need to be cowardly about it.

If Sunlight wants to have a conversation with me, I am more than willing. We'll see if he/sh wants to.

In the meantime, I know you cannot calculate the "likelihood" that "no gods is more likely than at least one god" nor "at least one god is more likely than no gods."

Both are nothing but blind guesses.

I get a kick out of atheists pretending their blind guess is something more.

Sunlight
2
Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

If "God" exists then there is at least one thing about it that separates it from everything else. If we can't establish what those things are, then it's unclear what we are even talking about (i.e. "God" is unintelligible). However, if we are clear on what properties "God" has and no evidence supports "God" having them, then the "God" we've defined clearly doesn't exist. In that way, the idea that science has no bearing on the matter seems misguided.

I also can't figure out why anyone would want to set the bar any lower. — Sunlight

Are you saying that no gods exist...and that you arrived at that "conclusion" through science or logic, Sunlight?

Or are you just trying to eliminate the question by suggesting it to be "misguided?"

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Sunlight Too bad such crystal clear reasoning is and, no doubt, will be wasted on the resident "bar lowering" troll; well, join the club: Welcome to TPF! — 180 Proof

That was almost beneath you...but like Trump, apparently there is no depth to which you will not sink.

Okay...ya gotta deal with your type if you want to discussing issues on the Internet.

Here are two of mine...hope you enjoy them:

He’s An Englishman Doing An American Accent

He’s an Englishman
Doing an American accent.
Which means he’s gonna use “gonna” a lot.

He’s gonna use “wanna” every bit as much.
And “Gotta” will be working overtime, too,
As will the double negatives.

If you are an Englishman
Who wants to do an American accent,
A great sentence to practice would be:

“I don’t wanna be no party pooper,
But I gotta be home by 10,
So I’m gonna leave now.”




An Eye Sore Is An Eyesore

A stye
Is an eye sore;
A sty
Is an eyesore.

Ain’t English a bitch!

180 Proof
1.3k
↪Frank Apisa Happy Solstice!

Stop trolling & projecting. — 180 Proof

Happy Solstice back at you, 180.

I am not trolling or projecting. I started this thread. I reply to all postings. Please continue to post. I enjoy replying to your comments.

It is not I who is delusional.

If you think you have arrived at "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" through logic or science...

...YOU are delusional.

But if you want to kid yourself...be my guest. It truly is fun to watch.

Pinprick
239
You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done.
— Frank Apisa

Lol, logic is stubborn...

The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!!
— Frank Apisa

How many of these “finest minds” support your claims?

I’m disappointed in you Frank, but not surprised. I gave you every opportunity to demonstrate where my faults are and you refuse to engage me. You just resort to parroting yourself. Maybe eating your own words will make point easier to digest...

Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

If you could defeat the argument...you would do it in an instant. But you cannot
— Frank Apisa

Enjoy your just deserts Frank. Bon appetit. :vomit: — Pinprick

Yup...undoubtedly two atheists...in a world of denial.

To be fair, theists also are in denial, but at least most theists have the ethical wherewithal to acknowledge they just "believe" the things they "believe." Atheists like you two kid yourselves further by pretending you are reaching your "beliefs" (your blind guesses) via science and logic. Most actual scientists and logicians would never pretend to arrive where you have. (That's the reason people like Einstein, Sagan, and Hawking became angry when called an "atheist.")

But...if the pretense helps make you feel safe...go for it.

It is actually fun to watch.

My guess is you will wake up to the truth at some point. It will be stunning when the realization hits. I hope you are not repairing a roof...or sawing at a tree branch on a ladder when it happens.

180 Proof
1.3k
... one cannot logically or scientifically ...

Some people blindly guess one way or the other ... and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing.
— Frank Apisa
@Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn: — 180 Proof

Yup...I told the truth.

I coulda told you that!

Pinprick
238
You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics.
— Frank Apisa

Yeah, because it would. At the very least a definition of God includes an immaterial being that causes physical effects through creation or somehow interfering in our day to day lives. That is physically impossible, because we are able to explain all effects through physical causes.

The existence of a god might not violate physics that we simply do not yet know.
— Frank Apisa

Unless the physics of the future refutes physical causality the existence of God would still violate physics.

I'm willing to go with your definition.
— Frank Apisa

Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

That is the worst attempt at a syllogism I've seen in quite a while. You did not even come close, but thank you for the laugh.
— Frank Apisa

Then show which premise is incorrect, or fallacy I committed.

Ummm...only three words there. Which one did you not understand?
— Frank Apisa

I mean why would it be more likely to fall towards the Earth? If it’s because the laws of physics make it more likely to do so, then you’re implying that it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be violated, which is precisely the same logic I’m using to show why it’s unlikely that any Gods exist. — Pinprick

You also lack what it takes to acknowledge the obvious...that one cannot logically or scientifically come to "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely one way or the other."

Some people blindly guess one way or the other on those questions...and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing.

You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done. The finest minds that have ever lived on our planet have tried IN BOTH DIRECTION...and failed miserably. But you suppose you have done it here in this forum!!!

That should be a clue that you are kidding yourself. I doubt you will take it.

180 Proof
1.3k
A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.
— Frank Apisa
But you're not correct, Frank. That's what so laughable. You're so wrong because your statements on this topic are, more often than not, not even false. :lol: — 180 Proof

C'mon, 180. A bit of originality would be welcome from you.

Anyway...of course I am correct.

But you still are not ethical enough to concede it.

My guess: You are an atheist. Just about every person who uses atheist as a descriptor blindly guesses that there are no gods...or blindly guesses that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. But they like to pretend that their blind guesses are actually something scientific or logical.

Poor them.

180 writes: "I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank."

I post proof that what I said was correct...and he posts an emoticon.

A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.

Here's one back atcha: :razz:

180 Proof
1.3k
I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) [i[makes no sense[/i] to me.

Okay…with those predicates in mind…when I use the words “God” or “gods” I am talking about any entity (or entities), whatever its make-up or characteristics, that pre-existed this thing we humans call “the universe” and was the cause of its creation or instrumental in its creation in some meaningful way.
— Frank Apisa
Ok, finally we agree! :clap: "Pre-exist ... the universe" is synonymous with "supernatural (... outside of what exists)" which, as you say, "MAKES NO SENSE". So you've come around to what I've claimed all along: the so-called "gods" you keep saying you're "agnostic" about "MAKES NO SENSE" (&÷#@$% as pointed out here) and, therefore, you're not even "agnostic", just inadvertantly GODLESS (i.e. atheos).Great work! :up: — 180 Proof

If you want to think anything that exists...does not exist...be my guest.

People like Albert Einstein, Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking...all cringed at the sound of anyone calling them atheists. They were agnostics...
— Frank Apisa
I've already called you out on this, man, thoroughly debunking this BULL with their own words. Stop lying, Frank. :sweat:

AS FOR ALBERT EINSTEIN:

“My position concerning God is that of an agnostic. I am convinced that a vivid consciousness of the primary importance of moral principles for the betterment and ennoblement of life does not need the idea of a law-giver, especially a law-giver who works on the basis of reward and punishment.”
Albert Einstein in a letter to M. Berkowitz, October 25, 1950; Einstein Archive 59-215; from Alice Calaprice, ed., The Expanded Quotable Einstein, Princeton, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, 2000, p. 216.


AS FOR STEPHEN HAWKING:


In his book on Stephen Hawking, “Stephen Hawking, the Big Bang, and God, Henry F. Schaefer III, writes:
Now, lest anyone be confused, let me state that Hawking strenuously denies charges that he is an atheist. When he is accused of that he really gets angry and says that such assertions are not true at all. He is an agnostic or deist or something more along those lines. He's certainly not an atheist and not even very sympathetic to atheism.


AS FOR CARL SAGAN:


In a March 1996 profile by Jim Dawson in the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Sagan talked about his then-new book The Demon Haunted World and was asked about his personal spiritual views: "My view is that if there is no evidence for it, then forget about it," he said. "An agnostic is somebody who doesn't believe in something until there is evidence for it, so I'm agnostic."


I e-mailed the person who would know Sagan’s views better than anyone: Ann Druyan, Sagan’s widow. I specifically asked her about the quote in my 1996 story (“An atheist has to know a lot more than I know. An atheist is someone who knows there is no God”). Druyan responded:
“Carl meant exactly what he said. He used words with great care. He did not know if there was a god. It is my understanding that to be an atheist is to take the position that it is known that there is no god or equivalent. Carl was comfortable with the label ‘agnostic’ but not ‘atheist.'”




Stop with YOUR bull, 180. You are embarrassing yourself.