Olivier5
188
I am certain of lots of things.
— Frank Apisa

Good for you. The topic of the thread being ‘how do you know?’, you might wish to explain ‘how’, or in your own terms ‘how is it even possible to know anything’. — Olivier5

Richard Feynman was fond of saying (I paraphrase), "I know something about knowing things...and actually knowing things is a very, very difficult thing to achieve."

So, when I say I am certain of lots of things in response to what you asked, I am speaking in the informal sense of "I know."

I know, for instance, that the capital of England is London. If you have to ask me how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.

I know my name is Frank...and that I am sitting at my desk in my den typing. If you have to ask how I know that, you are playing a game rather than having a reasonable discussion.

I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...you are reading the words I typed and understanding what I am saying. I would venture a guess (perhaps wrongly) that you will continue playing your game and attempt to make this into something more than what prompted its instigation, namely me writing the words, "When I say I am guessing...I am guessing" which was prompted by your response to me earlier writing, "I call my guesses...guesses."

Ciceronianus the White
1.2k
I think that claims that there is no God, or it's likely there is no God, are typically made as responses to claims that there is a God or likely is a God. — Ciceronianus the White

I agree.

But the logical response would be, "I disagree with that assertion...and you have a burden of proof."

If, however, you go that not-required further step of saying, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...you transfer the burden of proof to yourself. Neither of those statements are "negative statements." Both are positive statements.

StreetlightX
6k
I closed it because it was devoid of argument, unnecessarily personal, and the equivalent of making its point by saying "that's just like, your opinion". It was a model of exactly how not to make a thread. It ought to have been deleted had there not already been a few comments posted in it. — StreetlightX

It was a full of "argument" and other considerations as any thread in this forum. It most assuredly was not "unnecessarily personal." In fact, it was not personal at all.

I suspect you are someone who considers him/herself to be an atheist...and attempting to have a reasonable discussion with an atheist on the Internet is like attempting to float through the air without mechanical help.

But, I accept that you have the right to shut down a thread...even if only because you find it threatening.

Okay...I accept that.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself.
— tim wood
:smirk: — 180 Proof

I never do.

Olivier5
186
↪Frank Apisa
Ok so you’re at least certain of one thing. — Olivier5

I am certain of lots of things.

Do you suppose that because I am agnostic (small "a'", not an Agnostic) on issues of gods...I am agnostic on all things? Do you suppose because I do not find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on the existence of gods, I cannot find enough unambiguous evidence to make a meaningful guess on anything else? If one of our local small town football teams were to play the Kansas City Chiefs (the winner of the NFL Superbowl last year)...do you suppose I could not make a meaningful guess about who would win?

C'mon.

3017amen
2.3k
Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot.
— Frank Apisa

You're welcome Frank.

Well, sorry for the redundancy (and this may/may not be what you want to hear) but the answer in Christianity: the historical account of Jesus Christ.

Short of that, I offer that foregoing list of philosophical concepts that I welcome you to critique. As such, I propose you pick one (we were talking earlier about the possible differences between reason and 'belief') as merely a suggestive starting point.

My broader argument will be that based upon nature and the human condition, Atheism relies much more on ignorance, lack of sophistication and intuition, (to name a few deficiencies) to justify their belief system. ↪180 Proof — 3017amen

The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus. It is a grouping of tales told by people, some of whom supposedly knew Jesus and some who did not. Paul, the writer of the most important parts of the "historical" account of Jesus...never met the man. (Whether Jesus was one person or several that ended up as one in an amalgam is still being debated by historians and theologians.)

Be that as it may...how does this account possibly show that at least one god exists? What if everything written is wrong...or interpreted way beyond recognition.

John Kennedy was killed in an area with hundreds (perhaps thousands) of eye witnesses...and we have dozens upon dozens of stories about what happened. There are PICTURES and MOVIES of what happened...and we cannot get agreement. But you are willing to take the account of some individuals who lived thousands of years ago...who had a bias and motive to slant things...as (you will excuse the expression) gospel?

C'mon, Amen.

Present your single most compelling piece of unambiguous evidence that at least one god exists. Then we can move on to what that god is like...and whether or not various descriptions of it work out.

Baden
10.7k
Why the heck was my thread shut down.
— Frank Apisa

I don't know but this comment is in the wrong place. You can start a feedback thread or wait for a PM. — Baden

Thanks, Badden.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa ↪180 Proof

Frank, in accordance with the spirit of the OP (What are your positions on the arguments for God) the following will provide for sufficient discourse:

**List of pragmatic, existential, metaphysical and cognitive phenomena, including cosmology and logic:

**Some can easily overlap into other disciplines and/or domains, and this is by no means a comprehensive list

Logic/epistemology:

1. logical possibility
2. logical necessity
3. a priori v. a posteriori
4. synthetic a priori knowledge
5. binary v. dialectic reasoning
6. reason and belief

Phenomenology/Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. subjective truth v. objective truth
3. the religious experience
4. revelation
5. NDE
6. music
7. math
8. love
9. instinct
10.sentience

Metaphysics:

1. consciousness
2. self-awareness
3. the will
4. the sense of wonder
5. causation
6. sentience

Cosmology:

1. the illusion of time
2. holographic principle
3. participatory anthropic principle
4. energy
5. gravity
6. causation
7. Panentheism — 3017amen

Thank you for continuing here, Amen.

I asked for your #1 piece of unambiguous evidence that a god exists.

Give that a shot.

180 Proof
1.6k
@Frank Apisa The mods have already closed your latest thread "To the people who assert 'there are no gods'" before I could reply to the OP so I'm posting it here. Hopefully they won't close this one too before you have a chance to reply to this post ... — 180 Proof

First of all, thank you, 180. I appreciate you reaching out. Not sure why they closed the thread. It was a legitimate topic, and I have questioned the motivation for the closing in the "Banning" thread. I'm sure we are going to get the standard "low quality" reply, which pretty much translate into, "I didn't like it."

ME?

I have no idea if “no gods exist” or if at least one does. I prefer not to guess on the issue, because all such guesses would be nothing but blind guesses—nothing more than a coin toss.

If I did, however, make such a guess, I would have the ethical wherewithal to call the guess…A GUESS.
— Frank Apisa
So what makes your guess true that positions for or against "gods" are "nothing but blind guesses"? — 180

If you want to think of my comments on that subject to be opinions...fine with me. But...I have challenged people who hold both sides to present UNAMBIGUOUS evidence in either direction...and everything I've ever received as a response barely passes the guffaw test.

Show us, sir, that you "have the ethical wherewithal to" demonstrate that a "guess ..." is, in fact, as you claim "A GUESS", and that you're just not "calling bullshit" but also flinging "BULLSHIT" too. — 180

If you think that "there are no gods" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.

If you think that "there is at least one god" is something more than a guess...present your unambiguous evidence.

To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.”
Good. I only assert that Theism Is Not True and, therefore by implication, Theistic Deities Are Fictions. If this is "bullshit", then a "Very Stable Genius" like you, Frank, will have nooooo problem following either of my links and quickly pointing out the faults in my reasoning. :sweat: — 180

If by "theism" you mean people who assert, "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely there is a GOD than that there are none"...we are shoulder to shoulder. I agree...it is BULLSHIT.

By the same token the people who assert, "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...are engaging in BULLSHIT just as deep and smelly.

Okay?

Why the heck was my thread shut down.

It was a reasonable subject for a philosophy forum...and while I set it up in an aggressive manner, the point was to stimulate lots of discussion.

We were all getting along just fine. Nobody was going over-the-top...and it was interesting.

I know the answer is going to be the fall-back, catch-all "low quality"...but holy moly...you folk are getting awfully picky about what is "low quality."

C'mon. We can keep the quality up in the forum without undue censorship.

Here is a question for you Frank. What happened if everyone thought like a Philosophical Pessimist? How would that change how the world operates? Or would it? Would the reality of the situation still be that people would simply slog on in their dealings with and move forward the same the same the same as it ever was. — schopenhauer1

Really, really tough question for me, because I almost NEVER think like a pessimist. I consider myself one of the luckiest people ever...things just seem to break my way. I've had some tough moments in my 84 years (cancer and a minor stroke)...but I always came up with a rose in my mouth. I live at a poverty level...but I am content with what I have and desire almost nothing more.

The covid thing has got me thinking about suicide, though. The thought of dying by drowning in one's own fluids over weeks of intensive care...bereft of family and friends to ease the exit...is so horrible to contemplate, I am sure if it were happening to me, I would be hoping for a quicker, less painful ending. Assisted suicide would be one way for that to happen.

Just a thought problem. I doubt anyone right now will be given that "quicker, less painful" option.

Thanks for all the other thoughts, Schopenhauer. I'll consider them more as I follow the thread.

How reasonable this is depends a lot on what you mean by "exist". — Echarmion

Or by what we mean by "How" "reasonable" "this" "is" "depends" etc.

You know what I mean by "exist." Or...make a guess.

It's fairly obviously the case that our current best empirical theories about the physical world don't include a god or gods. So if existence refers to physical existence, then God or gods don't exist. — echarmion

If gods exist...they exist. If humans, the puny beings on this nondescript planet circling this nondescript star in this nondescript galaxy cannot perceive them for some reason...IF THEY EXIST they exist nonetheless.

We do not know if gods exist.

There is plenty of empirical evidence for people acting as if they believed in a god of gods, and, making some basic assumptions, it follows that God or gods "exist" fairly commonly as mental idea and as a shared social entity. — echarmion

We agree on that.

If we're talking about metaphysical "existence" in some unfathomable way, the "coin toss" stance seems apt. But the "unfathomable" bit kind of throws a wrench into things. Can something be meaningfully said to "exist" if it's entirely unclear what such "existence" entails? I tend to answer that with a "no". — echarmion

If gods or ghost or spirits or extradimensional beings exist...despite humans abilities to perceive them in any way...then they exist.

Like it or not...each person here has got "life."

What are your thoughts on simply ending it?

Should suicide be made more accessible and easy?

I think it should be. Interested in what you think.

whollyrolling
460
↪Frank Apisa And if you can't agree on terms, then the entire conversation is pointless and will never go anywhere unless it sidetracks into more interesting things that contain common terms and insightful dialogue.

Repeating the same words without learning or progressing in any way for months isn't philosophy--or maybe it is man, who am I to say I guess. — whollyrolling

Okay. Maybe you want to find a thread that more suits your needs and wants.

Judaka
736
↪Frank Apisa
What is a god? — Judaka

An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

whollyrolling
460
↪Frank Apisa That's not what the dictionary says though. Plays on words only serve to derail conversation. Redefining a word is only convenient inside your own head or the heads of others who believe the same sleight-of-word trick works. — whollyrolling

Oh. I thought you were asking me what it is...not what "the dictionary" says it is.

Hippyhead
228
To the people who assert “there are no gods” or “it is far more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one”…

…I call, “BULLSHIT.”
— Frank Apisa

I believe I've read this before somewhere, just can't remember where though..... — Hippyhead

You "believe" that...or you "know" that? :wink:

whollyrolling
454
↪Frank Apisa Hey man, do you know what 'faith' is? — whollyrolling

Yeah.

In a religious or philosophical context...

...a "belief" is a guess about the unknown.

"Faith" is being pig-headed about insisting the guess is correct.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Frank! — 3017amen

Amen.

Wow, this is quite a purging of sorts, eh!? Remember Pascal's Wager? That could be an analogious or a possible thesis to work from there... . — Amen

The two most worthless philosophical protocols are Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor. I do not use them.

To that end, I would like to start with your definition of Belief? In your view, philosophically, what does it mean to hold or have a Belief (I'm just putting it in caps for emphasis)? — Amen

In a philosophical discussion (or a religious discussion) the use of "belief" is a way of disguising a guess.

Second, as a Christian Existentialist, my 'belief' is that there is much more supporting evidence from history (the Christian Bible), nature, and existence itself for (to support) the existence of God than not. I can succincty enumerate them if you like...then we can go through each one. — Amen

I am sure the people who "believe" there are no gods or who "believe" it is much more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...can also enumerate them.

None hold any water.

But give me your best one if you want and we can discuss it.

(In fact, I will argue that the Atheist belief system is based more on ignorance than not.) — Amen

I suppose you would. Just as I would suppose people who guess the other way would argue that your "beliefs" derive from ignorance.

Gregory
1.3k
I know the Thomistic God doesn't exist because since he sustains the world he would also have to sustain child rape in act, which would contradict his holiness. So that's one god down — Gregory

Yeah...if the god has to accept YOUR definition of what is holy and what isn't.

Olivier5
185
When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing.
— Frank Apisa

I thought maybe you are guessing that you are guessing. Possible? — Olivier5

Anything not established as impossible...is possible.

But when I say I am guessing...I am guessing.

TVCL
33
↪Frank Apisa

Unless a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.
— Frank Apisa

I'm not contending this. I am contending the relevance to this post and it is irrelevant. It does not, by itself, demonstrate that an afterlife is possible by definition. Some do regard an afterlife as impossible.

Even if an afterlife were defined as something which is possible or has not been established as impossible, your observation would be tautological: "an afterlife must be possible because it is not impossible" the question would remain: "how do you know?" — TVCL

I appreciate what you are saying, TV. You seem to be suggesting that my comment "Unless a thing is established as impossible, it is possible" does not add anything to the conversation..

One: "Unless a thing is established as impossible...it is possible"...is tautological.

Two: Mentioning that makes a hell of a lot more sense than mentioning that "Reason can prove it is possible."

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa Don't act like the crazy man on the corner talking to himself. It does not become you, and it's a waste of time and effort. — tim wood

Nothing crazy about me...nor am I talking to myself.

If you think so poorly of me...stop engaging me. If you are capable of that.

TVCL
32
↪Frank Apisa That is a redundant observation. What was addressed from the first paragraph of the OP is that the argument is addressed to those who currently regard an afterlife as impossible or, at least, do not recognise the possibility. — TVCL

Nothing redundant about it, TV.

It simply is a statement of fact.

Unless a thing is established as impossible...IT IS POSSIBLE.

One does not have to prove such a thing any more than one has to prove that a circle has no corners or a four sided figure is not a triangle.

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa Uh, Frank, I did quote you. I used the quote function. What is reproduced in my post is exactly what you wrote in yours - is why it's called the quote function. Maybe a little hair of the dog? — tim wood

Absolute nonsense, Tim. ABSOLUTE NONSENSE.

Here is the quote in its full context:

I disagree totally with that part, Tim.

The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.

Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.

It isn't.

This is what you quoted:

"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math."

If you think that truncated quote expresses what I was saying in my comments, you are WRONG.

EricH
215
↪Frank Apisa
You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity.
— Frank Apisa

Aargh. Should have re-read my last post one more time before sending it out. I left out some key information.

When I am discussing this "God topic" with someone, especially if that person has identified themselves as a theist or atheist, my starting point is to assume that the other person is referring to the supernatural god(s) - since that is the definition used by most of humanity. Now I'm well acquainted with the old saying about making assumptions (makes an ass out of u and me) - but until you find out otherwise this is a reasonable assumption to make. When most people use the word "God", they are referring to the supernatural god.

My follow up question is usually to ask that person to define the word "God" - and take it from there.

Now. If someone asks me for my personal definition, I will answer something like this:

when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.
— EricH

Here is the full post from 5 days ago: EricH definition of the word "God"

Getting back to your definition, I have no problem with it. I wish you luck in getting the rest of humanity to accept/use this definition. May the force be with you.

That said, in previous posts I have made several recommendations to you to help you in your lonely quest

One recommendation is that when you post your 3 part multiple choice question about guessing? You must put your definition of the word "God" up in front of the multiple choice question. Otherwise, anyone reading it is going to make the reasonable assumption that you are referring to the supernatural being. I have watched you engage in numerous back & forth discussions in which you and other folks on the forum were talking past each other because you had not clarified your definition.

If nothing else, it will save you many hours of typing if you include your definition in front of your multiple choice question. :grin:

My other recommendation to you has been for you to use a different word other than "God".
— EricH

Thank you for the "help." I do prefer to do things the way I do them, though.

In summary, it seems like we're in agreement. We're both agnostic with respect to your definition of the word "God". We're both ignostic to the supernatural "God". — EricH

I am not ignostic to anything...and I really do not like descriptors. Most conversations on this issue take up more time with defining the descriptors than with the issues themselves.

Instead of using descriptors...tell me what you mean.

Olivier5
184
Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.
— Frank Apisa

Are you even absolutely certain that you are guessing? — Olivier5

When I say I am guessing...I AM guessing.

tim wood
5k
"It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.
— Frank Apisa — tim wood

This "quote" so distorts what I actually wrote...I just disregarded what else you had to say.

Do a real quote...and then comment on it. I'll respond.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Your gibberish sails righy over my head again, Frank. — 180 Proof

I would not want to have the task of listing all the things that sail over your head, 180.

The "definition" part of the use of the word "gods" seems to raise its ugly head often.

Here are three that I use...all variations of the same definition. I offered all three at times in discussions here or in other fora.

1) An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”

2)
Predicates:

It is my opinion that what we humans call “the universe” may well not be everything that exists. All these hundreds of billions of galaxies each containing hundreds of billions of stars…may be just a tiny part of something incomprehensibly larger.

Secondly, even in this thing we humans call “the universe” is "all that there is" there may well exist entities here in this universe that are not discernible to human senses in any way.

Thirdly, 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) makes no sense 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.

The notion, we need to revere, honor, and worship any God or gods that do exist does not enter the picture. (I am not saying such a GOD could not exist.) The need for omnipotence or continued involvement is not involved in what I mean. (I am not saying that could not be the case.)

3) What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.

I suspect there may be LOTS of things that do exist…that humans are incapable of detecting in any way. We are, after all, just the currently dominant species on a nondescript hunk of rock circling a nondescript star in a nondescript galaxy among thousands of billions of galaxies.

EricH
214
↪Frank Apisa
So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that?
— Frank Apisa

I have been saying this over and over to you in as many different ways as I can figure out. So yes we agree.

And throughout all recorded history until the present time, being supernatural is the core/fundamental trait/characteristic underlying the meaning/usage of "god(s)" to most of humanity. — EricH

Okay, so most of humanity has been wrong. We should be better than that. Up until 100 years ago "most of humanity" INCLUDING almost every scientist who ever lived...thought this galaxy we see as the Milky Way...was the entire of everything that existed.

Most of humanity was wrong.

Anyway...you and I agree that the term "supernatural" is bullshit. That moves our discussion forward a long way, just as a discussion between us on the nature of the cosmos will be furthered by acknowledging what science now knows about galaxies.

By the way, you previously said, "However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component."

You had the entire statement bolded, but I removed it to point out the part that caused me to start with that first argument. You were saying that YOU agree with that definition...which I just wanted to establish as an absurdity.

Now we have established it as such. My next post will raise the next point I want to discuss.

The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"
— Frank Apisa
Why "should" it? Any answer to the second question will always beg the first question. To wit: How do you know that your answer to "Is it even possible for any human to know?" is true? :yikes: — 180 Proof

"Should" and "probably shout/should probably" are two different concepts. You are asking me about something I never asserted.

↪Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.
— tim wood
:up: Or "Mr. Coin"-tosses — 180

Or a guess. I guess on things often. I call my guesses...guesses.

Nothing wrong with guessing at all. My guess is we all do guessing most of our day...each and every day.

tim wood
5k
↪Frank Apisa But absolutely never, in that case, to profess any knowledge based on that ignorance.

As to knowledge itself, that seems in every case particular knowledge, always associated with the that which is known, and in that sense, known.

Ignorance, grounds only for itself. The "I don't know" is worthy of respect. But it must thereafter be silent - in terms of knowledge.

In terms of nonsense, however, ignorance often does have a lot to say, and usually says it and often insists on it. Perhaps the operative word in "how do you know?" is the "how." If a claim cannot assay that, then what differentiates it from halluciation, madness, or fond "thinking"? — tim wood

I disagree totally with that part, Tim.

The "I do not know...and more than likely neither do you" must not be silent. It must be loud and put forth in every discussion...especially in discussions where things are being discussed in terms of "likelihood"...where the likelihood is as unknown as the subject of the conjecture.

Take the issue of "There are no gods"...often expressed as "It is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." People actually feel comfortable expressing the later as though it is a product of logic, reason, science or math.

It isn't.

To be silent rather than express objection (even militancy) in favor of what you term "ignorance" on the issues is unethical. So are demands that one be silent on them. Fact is, the term "ignorance" is a misnomer here. It is not ignorance to recognize a lack of knowledge. It may be ignorance not to do so.

tim wood
5k
The animal I am remains alert - alive. And the reasonable man that I am more-or-less continually reaffirms his choices - as choices, even if nothing else. In these I retain (I think) freedom and thus wish to sleep only when in a state of greater inconvenience. That is, even if I cannot keep things always aboil, I try to keep them warm or at least above ambient temperature. — tim wood

Agree!

I'm 84...and although I've had my share of hard times, I've lived a great life. Glad it came along. Still getting lots of kicks...and have no desire for it to end soon, although I am not in favor of a "last few years" of the kind I've seen some live. I hope the ending, when it comes, comes quick. Standing in the doorway of that warehouse that exploded in Beirut would have made a fine good-bye.

Doesn't sound as though Shopenhauer is having much fun on his trip through this life.

Hope that turns around.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Super-natural from a physics perspective relates to something beyond the natural laws of physics. Which could also include brute mystery at the end of the Universe. — 3017amen

So you suppose humans KNOW ALL the "natural laws of physics?"

tim wood
5k
So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?
It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.
Can we agree on that?
— Frank Apisa
Always a pleasure to find something agreeable. I'll sign on here to this. Lead on. — tim wood

Thanks, Tim.

I'll wait for Eric to respond. And he may want to choose the next particular to discuss.

EricH
211
↪Frank Apisa
We're still having this discussion? Given my complete lack of success in previous attempts I'm not optimistic about succeeding this time, but I'll try.

Words have meanings/usages. If you use a word in a particular manner and I use it differently, then communication becomes complicated, but as long as we understand how we each individually use the words we can still communicate. I can immerse myself in your definition and say - "Frank, according to your definition I understand (and possibly agree) with what you're saying"

So. My question to you - which I have asked repeatedly in many different varieties is this: When you - Frank Apisa - use the word "god(s)"? Are you referring to something natural or supernatural? AFAICT you seem to be saying that the word "god(s)" refers to some natural phenomena which - at least hypothetically - can be observed, measured, discerned, even though we frail human beings are currently incapable of such discerning.

If that is indeed the case - if this is your definition- then I agree with your little algorithm and I am on your side. There is no reason to guess either way. I have stated this repeatedly.

However, I then point out to you that your definition of "god(s)" is different from mine and virtually every other human being on this planet. To all religious people - and to atheists - the definition/usage of the word "God" include some supernatural aspect/component.

You call yourself an agnostic, but your agnosticism seems to pertain to a natural phenomena.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."
The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist.
— Frank Apisa

Again I agree with you. The "supernatural being nonsense" is used by atheists - BUT BUT BUT - the concept is likewise used by theists who guess that such entities exist.

So I'll rephrase my question in yet a different fashion. When it comes to supernatural entities - do you guess that they don't "exist" (whatever that might mean) or do you say the whole concept is meaningless?

If you guess that supernatural entities do not "exist" then you are an atheist about such entities. If you assert that the whole notion of supernatural entities is meaningless, then you are taking some variety of an ignostic position. — EricH

I didn't realize we had stopped having a discussion...and I certainly do not want to stop.

To make things easier, though, perhaps it is best to limit our discussion to a single element...and see if we can arrive at a satisfactory accord before moving on to others elements.

Allow me to choose the first one...which has to do with the word "supernatural."

Natural, to me, means anything that exists in nature...anything that exists, period. If a thing EXISTS...it is a part of nature.

I suppose (this is just a guess) that there are things that exist...but that humans are not aware of...either because of distance (the universe is a big place) or because of sensory limitations in humans (we may simply not be able to sense or perceive of certain things that exist).

So to ask about "super" natural...meaning outside of what exists...and asking if it exists...essentially is asking are there any things that do not exist that exist?

It makes no sense. No more sense than a circle with corners...or a triangle with four sides. Once there are corners...it is no longer a circle; once there are more or less than three sides...it is no longer a triangle.

Can we agree on that?

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

180, once again, unknowingly acquiesced to admitting he hasn't figured it all out yet. And that's actually okay! How can you be a human and a snowflake all at the same time? Dr. Spock would say that's illogical! LOL

Hence, his liar's paradox, LOL — 3017amen

If calling me a snowflake makes his feel better about being him...

...okay with me. It cannot be pleasant knowing he is himself.

As I said, you have nothing to say...and you say that well.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa You're a self-confessed "special snowflake", sir. There's "nothing" (as you say) of philosophical interest left to discuss with you now that you've been exposed decisively. Btw, Frank, try not to melt; there's a record-shattering heat wave going on at the moment. — 180 Proof

Sorry you melt down so easily. I like a better challenge.

But continue your delusions. They are fun to watch.

:lol: