Kenosha Kid
17
Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."

Please deal with that.
— Frank Apisa

I did. I even explicitly bring it back to the quote within the text. Did you not really read it?

I did read it.

Too long?

It was not too long. It just was not germane to the text of mine that you quoted.

— Kenosha Kid

Brevity is not my strong suit.

Either way, the assertions regarding relative likelihood are poorly chosen, patently false in fact. That is my gist. If you want the details, refer to my previous response.

Thank you. I'll pass.

Imagine the following scenario: Someone comes up to you with a closed opaque box in his hand and says, "what's in this in box?" The only answer you can give has to be a guess, a blind guess. Then this person shows you a second box and says, "there's something in this box. It's not an animal. what's in it?" Here, you have some information to go on and although you may ultimately have to make a guess, certain possibilities are ruled out, no? In other words, you employ logic with the second box, an option unavailable to you with the first box. I think the issue of god's existence is akin to the second box scenario. — TheMadFool

How is the second scenario any less a blind guess than the first...even with the "information?"

And what "information" do you have to make the answer to the question "Is it more likely there is at least one god...or is it more likely there are no gods."

So I believe we are in a constant evolving transition through history from "how reality is" when we do not have knowledge and thus control to "how reality does" when we do have knowledge and control. Going from that which is subject to the all knowing all powerful to that which is the all knowing/powerful. — Benj96

Thank you for sharing what you "believe."

But I am interested in the question being asked in the OP...and what I had to say about it.

A Seagull
489
↪TheMadFool Frank Apisa

 All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence.

It might help to look at the history. 'God' or more specifically the concept of god was invented by man. No question. Hence only the concept of god exists. End of story. — A Seagull

Okay...now prove that the concept of god was invented by man...rather than instilled in man by a god of some sort.

A person tells you there are blue pigs everywhere in Australia and another tells you that, if you're lucky, you might spot an orange echidna. You spend a year travelling in Australia and see no blue pigs and no orange echidnas. The quote above is equivalent to saying that blue pigs and orange echidnas are still equally likely, i.e. if you did not see a blue pig, there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia, and if you did not see an orange echidna there is a 50/50 chance of them being in Australia.

This is neither logical, reasonable, mathematical or scientific. If blue pigs are supposed to be abundant and orange echidnas rare, the probability of encountering a blue pig is much higher than encountering an orange echidna, thus the probability of not encountering a blue pig much lower than the probability of not encountering an orange echidna.

Neither actually exist, to my knowledge and experience (I was lucky enough to spot a few normal echidnas), and neither have been disproven by my experience (it's still possible that Australia is teeming with blue pigs and I was just unlucky), however: the claim that Australia is teeming with blue pigs is now less likely than the claim about the rare orange echidna.

This is, in fact, how science works. We calculate the probability of a null hypothesis being true given the experimental data. Probability theory being a logical, reasonable field of logical, reasonable mathematics.

If God A is omnipresent, eternal, and interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, it has a much higher probability of being detected scientifically than God B who was very tiny, billions of light years away, lived only for one second, and had the scattering cross-section of a neutrino. That is, the probability of not detecting God A ever is much lower than the probability of not detecting God B. Given that neither God A nor God B have been detected ever, God A is a less likely proposition than God B.

And the notion that God A is omnipresent, eternal, interacts with matter and electromagnetic radiation, but is not detectable unless He so chooses is non-scientific, and can be dismissed by scientists on those grounds.

If God A can be said to be less likely than God B, then it cannot be said that, unless proven or disproven, God cannot be said to be more likely to exist or not exist on scientific grounds (or indeed mathematical grounds), whatever characteristics God might have.

As an extra: any monotheistic God has a vanishingly small probability of existence if undetected, since there are an infinite number of possible monotheistic Gods and, by definition, at most one can exist, making the monotheistic God's probability of existence infinitesimal on mathematical grounds, again, no matter His characteristics beyond His monotheism. — Kenosha Kid

What on Earth does any of that have to do with the comment I made that you quoted?

Here is the quote again: "I further assert that one cannot establish that it IS MORE LIKELY that at least one god exists than that no gods exist using logic, reason, math, or science."

Please deal with that.

TheMadFool
6k
↪Frank Apisa All that matters here is to realize that theism/atheism aren't blind guesses as the list of arguments I provided shows. Agreed that each and every one of them is not perfect; nevertheless, their existence bespeaks a wish/desire/hope for evidence. — TheMadFool

They ARE blind guesses.

And there is PLENTY of evidence that at least one god exists...just as there is PLENTY of evidence that no gods exist.

We humans simply cannot tell which it is.

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS, the stuff we humans know about and the stuff we do not know about is evidence of "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

We just cannot figure out which it is.

That does not stop some people from blindly guessing that at least one does exist that none exist; that it is more likely that one exists than that none exist; or that no gods exist than that at least one does.

All of them are blind guesses.

TMF,,,think this over carefully. It is important.

TheMadFool
6k
If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it.
— Frank Apisa

For God:

1. The ontological argument for god

2. The argument from design

3. The Kalam cosmolgical argument

4. The prime mover argument

5. The fine-tuning argument

Against God:

1. The problem of evil — TheMadFool

Okay. Let's discuss them.

I'll lead off.

NOT A ONE OF THEM LEADS TO, "Therefore there is a God" or "Therefore there are no gods."

NOT A ONE OF THEM LEADS TO: "Therefore it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "Therefore it is more likely that there are no gods than there is at least one."

Not a one of them!

If one of them did...no conversation would be taking place on the issue.

You go.

If you do not understand what a person means when using "the god of the Bible"...I doubt the conversation is going to make much sense.

You are free to think of "blind guess" whatever way you choose.

My idea of a blind guess is any guess not made based on reason, logic, math, or science.

If you think ANY of the four assertions I mentioned CAN be obtained through reason logic, math, or science...put it forth. We can discuss it.

Haven't ruled out anything...INCLUDING THE GOD OF THE BIBLE.

The notion that an atheists is "someone who lacks a 'belief' in any gods" is bizarre and self-serving. I think the publishers of every English language should rid his/her publication of wording of that sort.

Kaepernick was attempting a respectful, peaceful protest. Ya know...the kind many American conservatives say people ought to do rather than engage in protest marches that block traffic and sometimes devolve into riots.

He pretty much got fired and blacklisted as a result.

People calling for "peaceful protests" are really just saying, "Stop protesting and accept the crap we are throwing your way."

You are definitely a misanthrope or something else.

My guess would be...something else.

Gotta answer your question with another question I often ask:

Is what we humans refer to as "the universe"...everything that exists?

Obviously it is possible that what we humans refer to as "the universe" may be just a tiny element in a much, much larger...thing.

If so...then the thing we call the universe probably does have a location within it.

Ummm...which is a rather convoluted way of saying, "No way we can know."

I suspect we humans over-estimate our abilities to understand things.

We are the current dominant species on a nondescript rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy. We almost certainly are no big deal.

If it happens that we are a big deal...we are screwing up a great thing in a major league way.

I originally was going to post: Has any philosopher ever written something related to WHAT?

I couldn't make sense of the predicate to your question.

But if you meant..."leaving someone wondering what the writer is talking about"...the actual answer is: Several.


Kierkegaard, Wittgenstein, Heidegger, Kant, and Hegel all come to mind. One can read a paragraph by any of them...and re-read it a half-dozen times...and wonder, "What the hell does that mean."

The "his lips are moving" is a regular meme. I added all the rest myself.

Trump is a thoroughly disgusting individual as far as I am concerned. I guess I let it get to me.

How to tell if Trump is lying:

Either his lips are moving...

...or he is tweeting.

I've been told he never lies while he is sleeping...but occasionally lies that he is sleeping when he is not.

I get what you are saying...and agree. But your problem is a bit too close to, "If your mother and I were both drowning...which one would you save?"

Luckily, I swim like an anvil, so whoever I attempted to save would be doomed.

On a more serious note...if you were to pull the lever and make the train switch tracks...and the guy on the other side were killed...you would be responsible for his being killed. You will have caused his death by something you did. At best...a first degree manslaughter charge would be lodged.

If you did not pull the lever...no fault...except to the five tied to the tracks. The person who tied them would be in deep doo-doo.

I would like to hear everyone's thoughts about this. Thank you for your time — Marin

Well...just to highlight how screwed up things are right now...my first thought was...

...is there any change that Trump and Pompeo are two of the five, because that might be a very strong bit of motivation for inaction.

Add McConnell, Graham, and Barr to the grouping...and there is no way I would flick any switches.

If it were conclusively proved tomorrow that Trump has given blow-jobs to Putin and Kim...the thing that would surprise me is that it could be proven...NOT THAT TRUMP GAVE THEM BLOW-JOBS./

There is nothing that Trump does that should surprise anyone...except perhaps, tell the truth or take responsibility for anything.

Hot Potato
7
↪Michael ↪Michael I cannot agree with that. I mean, whatever you think of Trump I see Hillary Clinton being much, much worse .... particularly when it comes to honesty. — Hot Potato

If you are not kidding here...you are fucking nuts.

I hope you were just kidding.

I don't think anybody here believes that Biden will be awesome.

But what he can do is abstain from crippling the administration to inaction the way Trump has done it now. That's the thing he can do at least.

Or do you want to have Trump to be in charge when sh*t hits the fan in the South China Sea, China invades Taiwan and a US carrier is attacked or something? Do you think that Trump could dissolve a crisis similar to the Cuban missile crisis? Show cool judgement and lead the nation?

We genuinely have seen him now how he acts during a true and severe crisis. It's not anymore a maybe: he is as bad in leadership as he has shown earlier. — ssu

Trump has greatly exceeded our expecations.

We expected him to be very, very bad as president.

We underestimated him.

He has been horrendous.

Streetlight does seem to have anger problems.

Biden is not the perfect candidate...and frankly, I doubt the perfect candidate is out there. In the 83 years I've been alive, the "perfect candidate" has not appeared...although there have been some good candidates and good winners.

Biden, no matter his many faults, will be a marked improvement over Trump. But even Mickey Mouse would be a marked improvement over Trump.

:100: Amen, brother! — 180 Proof

:up:

Trump is corruption personified. He has done more damage to the Republic and its institutions than all of our foreign enemies combined.

The only thing in the nation worse than Trump are his supporters.

NOS4A2
3.2k
↪Michael

I'm not big on metaphor. I see him say and do terrible things and I call him out on it. That's it.

I’m not sure “terrible” is a fair and accurate description. — NOS4A2

I agree with you. "Terrible" is not fair or accurate.

I would use "loathingly disgusting" in most cases, but there are times I would use, "infantile" "adolescent" or "just plain stupid."

Good catch on your part.

Yes!

Xtrix
799
↪Frank Apisa

I've never once claimed they were the same. The policies are different, and even if by a small degree, in an otherwise powerful country this makes a large impact. — Xtrix

Okay...I included you and Tim because of the conversation you were having.

It is a dangerous trap to do so...and I think we all ought to remind each other as frequently as possible not to fall into it.

The two major parties are NOT the same...not at all. There are significant differences.

America has made a rather steady move to the right. Unfortunately, that is not unique in the world right now...many of the industrialized nations have.

The kind of freedom enjoyed in "free nations" tends to lead in that direction. The people become libertarian...and start to think that they should have more and more freedom...forgetting that the thing that got them the freedom they have, is the willingness to give up plenty of "freedom" in the interest of society.

There was a time when the Democratic Party was the party of bigots and the American right wing...and the Republican Party the party of liberals and the left.

Things changed.

The GOP has gone off the rails.With all the respect in the world, to suppose the Democrats are just the same thing in disguise is very, very wrongheaded.

ssu
2.5k
It's telling that Trump desperately wants to change discourse to anything other than the prevailing pandemic.

But the truth is that this pandemic clearly shows how utterly inept and incapable this populist bully is. I can understand that in 2016 Trump was for many the perfect middle finger to wag at Hillary Clinton and even the leadership of the GOP. But the truth known then and still totally apparent is that this person has no leadership abilities and is unfit to be the president of the US. He simply is not up to the job elected to, to be the head of the executive branch of the federal government. This person has no ability to lead people, to motivate them to perform better and make agencies with opposing agendas to work together as a team. — ssu

His supporters suspected that then...and know it for certain now.

But instead of making adjustments...and disavowing this buffoon, they continue their support.

Continued support for Trump is a crime against our Republic.

Actually, when you differentiate between the average understanding of politics and it's true nature there is a huge learning curve. It's the only thing separating humanity from an all out gore fest. The average up and coming young politician doesnt know this and often never does. Nor do some 'experienced' ones. Every position from the lowest city major to the highest office in the land has advisors who do. People who study economics, civics, society, history, behavioral science, and just about everything else who advise and inform what decisions should or should not be made and why. — Outlander

I agree...advice from advisors is a must. BUT...one must choose one's advisors...and that is a significant project. (One our current president has made a sewer.)

But a lot of what you said there is conjecture...and rather pessimistic, negative conjecture. I know LOTS of politicians...most on the local level, but I've had a former governor of my state (New Jersey) mention, during a radio interview, some op ed pieces he had read of mine. I've had lengthy conversations with former senator Bill Bradley and the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.

For the most part, they are dedicated people doing their very best to run their communities as efficient as possible...and to make the community and state as pleasant as they can.

But politicians, as I said earlier, have to deal with very diverse, and often polar, perspectives of what the people desire from government. A politician (a mayor or senator, for instance) is not just the mayor or senator for the people who voted for him/her...but is the mayor or senator for ALL the people.

Not an easy job...and the constant disparagement I see sent their way in these forums sickens me. That's why I asked that question.

For the record, very few people have ever tried to answer it with purpose.

Outlander
98
↪Frank Apisa

Someone "like me"? Have we met? Lol. — Outlander

I have been at this Internet posting thing since the late 1990's. We old-timers develop impressions of the cyber selves with whom we interact. If you are not at that point yet, you will be soon...and then you will understand.

I post counterarguments here often for little more reason than to do so. Well.. perhaps to learn more of course. And perhaps to aid others I can relate to.

That said before continuing please, spare no courtesy or manners. Myself and others here would assuredly like to know your truest and deepest essence in engaging opposing views.

Okay! Right now I am trying to find out what YOU would do differently if given the opportunity. You have been finding lots of fault with the politicians...which is the easy part of the issue.

So...sans courtesy and manners...just what the fuck would you do differently if your shaggy ass were able to win an election anywhere at any time?

Interesting! Personally, I could live with the choice of Harris. (Though Joe hasn’t called me yet to get my thoughts on the issue.) You think DT will drop Pence as VP? Could be... Who might the GOP VP nominee be then, one wonders? Someone even more obedient? Cuter? A woman to match up strategically with Biden’s choice? — 0 thru 9

I've been thinking he might choose a woman. Nikki Haley might make sense...but she may be too smart to take the shot. Republicans are running scared right now.

Trump is nuts, though, and it would not amaze me if he tried to get Ivanka or Jared bumped up. (Yeah, very long shot, but with this guy, anything goes.

Pence may be sacrificed as the guy who screwed the pandemic thing up.

Answer to your first question: I would like to see Kamala Harris chosen.

Partly for the reasons you listed, 0...but also because I think the traditional role of the VP nominee is to do some serious ass-kicking while the top of the ticket sticks with the high ground. (Except for Trump, who lives in the sewers.) Kamala can kick ass with the best of 'em. She will make Trump's VP (I suspect it will not be Pence) look like a chump...and will lash out at Trump for all the mistakes he will make.

Ah, yeah. Dutch.

Okay...apply it over there.

Benkei
2.9k
↪Frank Apisa More ranting. It seems some people did get the question so it's clearly you being obstinate. Enjoy that. Alone. — Benkei

Not sure if you are an American or not, so this applies to wherever you live:

What would you do better...and why are you not doing it?

To anyone who gives as much grief to politicians as someone like you, I simply ask, "What would you do better...and why the hell aren't you doing it?"

I never get a really decent answer. Mostly the answers show that the person is too lazy to go through the work needed to get to a position of responsibility...let alone actually take responsibility.

I am asking you, Outlander, courteously as possible: What would you do better...and why are you not doing it?