Dawnstorm
94
This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition.
— Frank Apisa

My entire point, though, is that so far, no-one's been able to convince me that "God" is a valid value for X in that instance. — Dawnstorm

Okay. But if you were saying, "So far no one has been able to convince you that World War II actually occurred"...where would that leave us?

OF COURSE "the possible existence of at least one god" or if you prefer "the possibility that no gods exist" can be a valid value for X in that instance. A dedicated theist or atheist might argue otherwise, but it would be a contrived, self-serving argument.

Why do you suppose "God" does not fit into the general "either X or not-X"...where X and not-X are mutually exclusive?

Coben
1.4k
Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

So, there's a fifty percent chance that there's at least one God? — Coben

That is not what I said. Any estimates about the existence or non-existence of any gods is no better than a coin flip.

But one or the other has to be correct by dint of the meaning of being said using the English language. Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist. It is a mutually exclusive situation as set by language. It cannot be that no gods exist AND at least one god exists.

But if a person makes a guess one way or the other...there is a 50/50 chance that the guess is correct.

If you think that is not so...just give me your reasoning. We can discuss it.

Aussie
18
Disclaimer: please read this post in the lighthearted manner in which it was posted. — Aussie

Okay. And thank you for replying.

That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.
— Frank Apisa

Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?
— Frank Apisa

That's an awfully reductive approach to a metaphysical question. Is it reasonable to apply that approach to the entirety of axiomatic beliefs? — Aussie

To the former: It may seem to be...but what I am asserting is so.

To the latter...the question: I'm not sure what "axiomatic beliefs" are, but I suspect it is reasonable to apply it to EVERY issue where "belief" is used to describe a guess about the true nature of the REALITY of existence. (You may be able to persuade me otherwise. We shall see.)

So that we are not overwhelmed, Aussie, let's take this discussion in small parcels...and after dealing with each, move on to the next. Item one:

- Either you can trust your senses (to at least some reasonable degree) and understand the world around you...or all perception is falsehood.

50-50? — Aussie

I respectfully suggest a false dichotomy. And even if the false dichotomy did not exist...I would disagree with the premise.

For instance, can you truly "trust your senses" with regard to whether or not the sun, moon, and stars circle the Earth...or must other non-sensory factors be brought into play?

What say you about the false dichotomy...and what say you about whether or not we can trust our senses?

Samuel Lacrampe
786
↪Frank Apisa
This is admittedly nitpicky, but doesn't "knowing" imply certainty? Math is indeed certain. But for the horse story, there is the alternative possibility of collective hallucination (though of course nobody in their right mind would choose it I think).

That aside, whether we use the word belief or knowledge, it sounds like it is a yes. Now consider 2 scenarios with 10 subjects trying to determine if there is a horse in a field:
(1) 9 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 1 does not.
(2) 1 out of 10 subjects see a horse; the other 9 do not.

In which of the 2 scenarios is it more reasonable to believe the horse is real? — Samuel Lacrampe

I will give you the answer you want...and then give the answer I would give if I were not being accommodating, Samuel. #1!

Now...the answer I would much prefer. Neither! I do not do "believing"...by which I mean I NEVER EVER say that I "believe" anything.

If you were asking, "Which would I be more inclined to suppose to be correct?"...I would respond, "I would be more inclined to suppose #1 to be correct"...that there is, in fact, a horse in the field. Any hesitation to do so would be occasioned by MY not being able to see it myself.

So...your point is?

Samuel Lacrampe
781
↪Frank Apisa
Still missing the point. Let's tweet the story some more.
Replace unicorn with horse; replace room with "field on the other side of the fence" (so that you cannot verify its existence by touching it). You still wouldn't believe it is real? — Samuel Lacrampe

I will answer your question seriously this time, Samuel. But in order to do so, I must take issue with the word "believe" here.

My answer would be, "NO, I do not 'believe' there is a horse there. I KNOW there is a horse there."

Please treat this the way you would if I wrote "I do not 'believe' 2 + 2 = 4 in base 10...I KNOW it does."

It is not a minor consideration.

Samuel Lacrampe
777
↪unenlightened ↪Frank Apisa Hello.

What they wonder is whether or not what they see is a mirage, which is a form of illusion, not a hallucination.
— unenlightened
This is missing the point (which admittedly with hindsight is unsurprising when using the desert example). We could have used the perception of a unicorn in a room instead. If I am the only subject, then I would second-guess my perception, but if many subjects perceive the same unicorn, then it is reasonable to suppose that it is real, until given a reason to believe otherwise. — Samuel Lacrampe

I apologize for this next response in advance, but these are desperate days, and ...well...

If you are in a room with many others and all of you perceive a unicorn...

...you ought really to ask the group leader for a group-therapy break...so everyone can take their medication.

(Hey, I did apologize in advance!)

I agree with unenlightened.

Don't even need a desert for this.

On a hot day with a stretch of roadway in front on you...almost everyone looking will see the distortion or illusion, unemlightened, mentioned. You could get a hundred people seeing the illusion of water on the roadway...and and all one hundred would be wrong.

Just want to share an interesting (in my opinion) take on this definition thingy.

In another forum I just used the expression "...goddam rain"...and was instantly called to task for "cursing."

Guy ALMOST got it right, because using "god" and "damn" in the same sentence often IS cursing...but not in this case.

Cursing, swearing, profanity, blasphemy, vulgarities...all have specific meaning...although they are reasonably used interchangeably in casual conversation.

Cursing is asking for someone to be "damned"...usually, although not exclusively by a god. "God damn you!" is cursing. "Trump is a fucking moron" is NOT.

Swearing...is oath taking...and when used in its pejorative sense, usually means asking a god to witness an oath unnecessarily. "I swear to god that Trump is the most ignorant, fucking moron ever to be president of America" IS swearing. Unnecessary calling on a god to witness a statement is swearing (in the pejorative sense) whether it is true or not.

Profanity (or blasphemy) involves making worldly what some consider sacred. "Jesus H. Christ" used in exasperation...is profanity. "Trump is a fucking moron" is NOT.

Saying, "Trump is a fucking moron" IS a vulgarity...without regard to whether it is true or true.

Felt that this fit into this discussion nicely.

Left this out of my first comment:

This is true for everything. X either exists or does not exist. It is a mutually exclusive proposition.

Dawnstorm
93
They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.
— Frank Apisa

? — Dawnstorm

You wrote:

A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C.

NO ONE has to "believe" C...because C is obviously absolutely true. Anyone with a brain KNOWS that C is true...even those who "believe" A and those who "believe" B.

I am saying that there is a significant difference between "know" and "believe."

You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion.
— Frank Apisa

This isn't about the burden of proof. It's a negative statement, because it negates a positive statement. I brought this up precisely because the relation between the syntax and the semantics isn't as straightforward as it appears.

If I were to claim that the platypus doesn't exist, that would be negative statement, but the burden of proof would be on me. Whether or not a claim is positive or negative in syntactic structure doesn't really impact the burden of proof.

I'll demonstrate why I brought this up with my reply to Pinprick. — Dawnstorm

I'll pass this over for now and read what else you write.

My point is that THE ASSERTION "There is (at least one) God" IS a positive statement. THE ASSERTION "There are no gods" (a form of 'God does not exist') IS also a positive statement...no matter the inclusion of the word "not."

Dawnstorm
92
A: God exists.
B: God doesn't exist.
C: God may or may not exist.

Some people believe neither A nor B, because they believe C. — Dawnstorm

They do not "believe" C...they KNOW C.

Can anyone here think of a way to phrase "God doesn't exist," as a positive, to which "God exists," would be a negative? I can't. — Dawnstorm

You are supposing that A is a positive statement...and B is a negative one. But that is not so. Both are positive statements. If made as assertions...BOTH would bear a burden of proof from the person making the assertion.

Very complicated word salad here...and I honestly cannot fathom what you are asking or where you are going with it.

But the answer to "Which came first, the chicken or the egg?" is fairly easy to answer.

At some point, a live bird delivered an egg...rather than another living bird. It apparently was an evolutionary development made necessary by the bird's need to fly...which required less weight than would be obtained by gestation 'til complete.

180 Proof
928
Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know.
— 180

No they are not.
— Frank Apisa
:monkey: :rofl: — 180 Proof

:vomit:

180 Proof
926
People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.
— Frank Apisa
Which "people"? — 180 Proof

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor. I said that in the sentence you quoted. Pay attention.

Certainly not weak/implicit/negative "atheists". — 180

I suspect they, too, either "believe" there are no gods...or "believe" it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If they did not, they probably would not choose "atheist" as a descriptor. The could use non-theist, skeptic, doubter, or agnostic instead. They use the "atheist" almost certainly because of a "belief"...not because of a dictionary.

Your argumentum ad populum & hasty generalization are fallacies, y'know. — 180

No they are not.

Yup.

In any case, there are times where a "definition" is important to a reasonable discdussion. But it is my experience that in way too many Internet philosophical discussions, the request to "define X" is more a challenge intended to divert. Someone is attempting to move away from an argument that has been successful made.

Here in a philosophy forum, we should be reasonable and ethical enough to observe an absolute essential to all reasonable debate; namely, that when an argument has been adequately made and a valid point established, that point should be conceded.

All too often ego takes control...and people will do everything possible NOT to concede a valid argument.

180 Proof
925
Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else.
— Frank Apisa
Stop projecting ... :lol: — 180 Proof

No problemo. I'm not projecting at all. :wink:

Pinprick
123
If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."

On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them."
— Frank Apisa

Of course I accept this; it doesn’t imply belief in the nonexistence of God. — Pinprick

Okay...we'll leave that be.

But this started when you wrote, "You’re either misunderstanding me, or are wording things wrong. I agree that an Atheist doesn’t believe in God. I’m arguing that to say an Atheist believes God doesn’t exist is wrong."

I disagreed...and still do. My argument essentially was (and IS):

People who use the word "atheist" as a descriptor do not use it simply because they "lack of belief (in) God"...but because they either "believe" there are no gods or "believe" it is MUCH more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

If you disagree with that...let's discuss it because I consider it to be extremely important.

DOES AMERICA NEED OVERSIGHT?

Shawn, right now, if America were a human...it would need institutionalization.

As a human, we would be considered bat-shit crazy!

180 Proof
924
↪Frank Apisa :roll: So you can't DEFINE "descriptor" in terms of how it DIFFERS from how "definition" is DEFINED (either commonly or technically) ... ok. No wonder, then, you don't understand that claiming you're 'agnostic about UNDEFINED' is incoherent, or an empty claim. — 180 Proof

Go play your "I am right/your are wrong" with someone else. I'd choose someone where you actually are correct...and the other person wrong, though!

:wink:

Time for an appropriate joke:

The wife of noted lexicographer Noah Webster unexpectedly walks into the family parlor and discovers Noah passionately kissing the downstairs maid.

"I am surprised," she declares.

"No, my dear," responds Webster, "you are astonished. It is I who am surprised."


Okay, break over. Back to work.

180 Proof
923
↪Frank Apisa If you can, define "descriptor" - particularly how it differs from "definition" - without being, as you say, "misleading". — 180 Proof

It seems pretty clear to me. What are you trying to do here, play a variation of the game that causes some people (perhaps Tim) to suggest that "definitions" are the Achilles heel of philosophy?

"Democrat" is a descriptor..."registered member of the Democratic Party" is a definition of that descriptor.

"Methodist" is a descriptor..."member of a Protestant denomination of Christianity that is attributed to the teaching of John Wesley and others" is a definition of that descriptor.

"Valedictorian" is a descriptor...usually "the student in a class who achieved the highest academic excellence" is a definition of that descriptor.

Pinprick
122
↪Coben ↪Frank Apisa

“I have no money” is making the claim that something is in my possession. However, if taken literally, it is a contradiction because really I don’t have anything. There’s nothing that I am actually in possession of. That’s why it is incorrect to negate the object of a verb, whether the object is money or existence. Claiming that the statement “I believe no Gods exist” means that I have a belief is like claiming that the statement “I have no money” means that I have something. — Pinprick

You are trying to make this into the kind of thing attributed to Hollywood Producer, Samuel Goldwyn, who at the end of a complicated production negotiation exclaimed, "Gentlemen, include me out."

If it would make the notion any more acceptable to you, it could be rephrased to: "There are some people who have money, I am not one of them."

On the god variation, "There are people who 'believe' at least one god exists. I am not one of them."

Andrew4Handel
1.4k
I think that not defining something accurately means you are not likely to be explaining or exploring the right thing.

This is particularly relevant in psychology and philosophy of mind but also in any field with where there is not an external object to hang a definition onto including social theory and politics. — Andrew4Handel

Sometime, one simply CANNOT meaningfully or accurately "define" a thing.

Best example I can think of is the word "atheist." It is a descriptor...but what it means is all over the place.

And the dictionaries are of little help, because their "definitions" vary significantly...and, at times, are misleading.

This has been discussed at length in other threads, so I'll leave it here.

The word "God" is another...especially when capitalized.

Shawn
10.4k
So I am all for the DOD doing some things but not to make sure we aren't handing our country to a traveling salesman.
— Valentinus

Yeah, there's an issue here. The DoD has command over the military; and yet all the other alphabet agencies are under civilian jurisdiction. :chin: — Shawn

The military is also under civilian jurisdiction...and well it should be.

Unfortunately, at the moment, the control is held by Trump.

When discussing this kind of thing, it is well to remember that dictionaries do not actually "define" words...they simply indicate how they are most often used.

Sometimes they even get that wrong!

Banno
7.2k
...some unifying central command...
— Shawn

Once, not all that long ago, they had this; they called it the "President".

Now there's just this slow, incomprehensible train wreck... — Banno

So very, very true...and sad!

MathematicalPhysicist
38
↪Pinprick Insanity is an ill-defined notion anyway.
Anyway here is an interesting sentence to be amused.

Every genius is necessarily insane, but not every insane person is a genius. — MathematicalPhysicist

I like Albert Einstein's take on the question:

"The difference between genius and stupidity is that there are limits to genius."

Pinprick
120
As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not.
— Frank Apisa

Right, I agree, because that type of belief is impossible to hold. It is empty. Let me give you an example. The statements “I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing, the absence of the possession of money. Unless you would argue that I actually do have/possess something if I say the latter. Maybe you would, because that’s what it seems you’re doing when the statements are about beliefs. I don’t see or understand what makes the term “belief” special to exclude it from following the same logic that’s used in the example. — Pinprick

Well...then look more closely, because you are missing it.

I can tell you it is absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD EXISTS.

And it is also absolutely true that I DO NOT "BELIEVE" THAT GOD DOES NOT EXIST. **

There are people who "believe" God exists. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM.

There are people who "believe" God does not exist. I AM NOT ONE OF THEM EITHER.

So there obviously IS a difference.

Think about it...or you will have to assert that I am wrong or untruthful in what I am saying.

As for your "money" example "“I don’t have any money” and “I have no money” mean the same thing"...YES. I agree.

But let's substitute "a 'belief' that God exists" for money: I don't have a 'belief' that God exists" and "I have no 'belief' that God exists" MEANS THE SAME THING.

But that does not go to the point of what I was saying.

** I normally use "gods", but am using "God" for the purpose of dealing with your question.

The question doesn't even exist for me...and I suspect that anyone who has to look for a reason...will never find it.

And that applies even if it is framed as an intellectual pursuit or "curiosity"...rather than as a personal search for a reason not to end a particular life.

I am of the "live and let live" school...which almost demand a concomitant "stay alive or end it...your choice" element.

That said, however, if you actually are contemplating suicide (despite your disclaimer)...think really long and hard about it. There is a good deal of finality about it.

180 Proof
916
atheists are believing in something
— BraydenS
Speaking for myself, I believe THAT theism is not true (i.e. believe THAT theism's negation is true). I/we don't "believe IN" (i.e. "worship"; unconditionally (devotionally) "trust" or "submit to" or "hope for") any one/thing as e.g. theists do. — 180 Proof

Yeah...that's about it.

Atheists think that what they "believe" and how they "believe" it...

...is much better than what theists "believe" and how they "believe" it.

And then atheists try to sell the idea that atheists are not "believers."

Two sides of one coin!

Pinprick
118
↪BraydenS But making a statement like that means that you can change the position of the “positive” and “negative” aspects and retain the same meaning.

“I believe that this doesn’t exist” becomes “I don’t believe that this exists.” Which means, to me at least, that by negating the object (exist) you actually negate the verb (believe). — Pinprick

You have got to be careful of this, Pinprick. What you are suggesting here is fine in idle conversation (used as a linguistic convention), but in a more structured discussion, it is not correct.

You should be able to see that by reversing the order you used. Here is the reverse order:"I don't believe that this exists" becomes "I believe that this doesn't exist."

It doesn't. Let me substitute "God" for the "that" in your suggestion.

As an agnostic, I can truthfully say: "I do not 'believe' that God exists." But that does not mean that "I believe that God does not exist. In fact, I do not.

I do not "believe" that God exists...

...AND I do not "believe" that God does not exist."

Both are true...and logical. Simply because I do not "believe" X does not mean I "believe" not-X.

Do you see what I mean there?

It is possible that "something" always existed with no gods involved...and any particular "John" came about by chance. It is also possible there is a god (or are gods) who figure into the situation some way.

WE DO NOT KNOW WHICH OF THESE IS THE REALITY.

Nothing wrong with speculating for the fun of speculating...but any calculations or "probability estimates" are not any better than flipping a coin with "heads" being the former and "tails" the latter.

There also is nothing wrong with making a blind guess...although I feel the coin toss has more dignity.

Having said that...I acknowledge that some people guess one way and some the other.

No big deal.

Interesting question upon which to speculate. There are lots of these kinds of questions...and I LOVE to do the speculating.

But there is a phrase I use often that many people seem reluctant to use. I recommend it...particularly when contemplating questions like this:

Beats the shit out of me!

That...and the other variations of "I do not know" are as important as answers...

...as is "4" when asked, "In base 10 what does 2 + 2 equal?"

I understand, Eugen.
Stay safe, my friend.

Case 2: I believe in God and I think no one could convince me not to believe. And I believe this because I don't believe in God because my parents taught me so. I went through a long process of thinking, I listened to the pros and cons, and I finally got to the conclusion that God exists. So I've been exposed to the information so far. The only thing that could theoretically make me change my mind would be something very original, a totally new argument against the existence of God. The issue here is that everything that could be said about this topic has already been said in my opinion. — Eugen

You do see that what you are essentially saying here is: Of the two possibilities (at least one god exists) or (no gods exist)...

...of those two possibilities, your blind guess is the former. (You also seem to be making a guess about the nature of that god...by referring to it specifically as God rather than as "a god.")

BUT...no matter how long your "process of thinking" was nor how carefully you "listened to the pros and cons"...your conclusion was no more scientific or logical than a coin toss. That's just the way it is with the question of whether at least one god exists or not. One or the other is the REALITY...and humans are simply not capable of knowing which it is. So they have to guess.

It is usual for people to call their guesses on the issue "beliefs."

Bottom line: Either at least one god exists...or no gods exist.

You've got a fifty-fifty chance of getting it right...so...?

ISeeIDoIAm
31
↪TheMadFool And you are right in those feelings, for you could be right. Yet also you could be wrong. That's where faith comes in. — ISeeIDoIAm

And for you, ISIDIA...what does "faith" mean in that context?

That I remain within the bounds of reason to the extent that I wield it well; that I don't confuse what I can imagine with what is real; that I don't confuse my hopes with facts; that I don't give up the truth for a false promise; that I'm content with what is than be ecstatic about what might be... — TheMadFool

Really nice, TMF. I like it.

Best way to sum this up is by mentioning a wise comment on an adage.

The adage is: You can lead a horse to water...but you can't make him drink.

The wise comment is: Don't try to make him drink...make him thirsty.

Yup...if your intentions are to change a persons "beliefs"...do the equivalent of making him thirsty. And keep in mind that making someone thirsty is not something that happens instantly. Making a person thirsty takes time...so patience is ESSENTIAL.

It can be done; you CAN change a person's "beliefs." But you've got to do it by planting a seed...and letting it germinate at its own speed.

I would say even if you had an AI that was capable of applying the rules of logic with 100% efficiency it would still be incapable of solving many philosophical problems. — Pinprick

As an aside to this general discussion, but with some relevance, I am proud to know that I am able to apply the rules of logic with 100% efficiency...about 5% of the time.

I went from being a practicing Catholic to being an agnostic.

It was a sea change.

I doubt I will ever change from being an agnostic, because one thing I know for certain...is that I do not know if any gods exist...or if no gods exist.