praxis
2.5k
↪Frank Apisa

Sorry for being unclear. The point is that there is evidence and reasoning. If there were no available evidence or reasoning then it could truly be a blind guess. — praxis

It IS a blind guess.

There is NO unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods. People who assert "there are no gods" use the same evidence that people who assert "there is at least one god" use.

The "evidence" is worthless.

As for the reasoning...that is nonsense. People who assert "there are no gods" claim their reasoning is flawless...and people who assert "there is at least one god" feel that same way.

The supposed "reasoning" is merely confirmation bias.

Recently I've heard this idea that "nothing is still something" in a number of places, e.g. on The Atheist Experience, and often used in the context of explaining existence itself.

But the reasoning is flawed, and the misconception actually flows from a linguistic issue with English. — Mijin

I suspect...

...that although there is the "linguistic issue with English"...

...that "nothing" is still "something"...even if it is just an idea.

An idea IS something...even though it has no substance.

A zero IS something...even though it is nothing.

Math was improved by the invention of "zero"...and probably could not exist coherently today without it.

praxis
2.5k
In my opinion anyone who asserts "There are no gods" is almost certainly asserting a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

Your opinion is presumably based on the fact that there is no evidence or reasoning available to reach this conclusion, so my presumption must be wrong. — praxis

I said NOTHING about it being wrong. How would I possibly know it is wrong?

If you are blindly guessing "there are no gods"...you may be correct. Of course, if you are blindly guessing that there is at least one GOD...you also may be correct.

That's the way it is with blind guesses.

Banno
9.1k
An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider “the Universe.”
— Frank Apisa

And you have been answered at a least a half-dozen times already.

...you know this is not the god of the Christians. — Banno

What does the "god of the Christians" have to do with this???

I was asked for a coherent description of "gods."

I gave one.

...you used the stacked term "entity" to avoid discussion of such things as personhood — Banno

Imagine that! I used the word "entity" to describe an "entity."

And I avoided things like "personhood."

Of course I did. Why would I not do it? Why would anyone question my doing it?

...and you posit something that is not part of the universe, despite the universe being everything; you attempt to avoid this by inventing a bigger universe that you call "nature", you reject the supernatural, despite it being, for everyone else, an essential aspect of god; that is, you indulge in special pleading. — Banno

I spoke of "what we humans call 'the universe"...which I noted, may not be all of what actually is. If you think there is no possibility that THE UNIVERSE is greater than we humans now suppose it to be...fine. Anyone can make a stupid mistake.

It's been explained that the notion of something pre-existing the universe in a temporal sense is incoherent, since space-time is what the universe consists in; you have not provided a sense of pre-existing that is coherent. — Banno

It has not "been explained." It has been asserted. That is what you people do...assert things that may not be so...and pretend you know things that you do not know.

No problem. As I said, anyone can make a stupid mistake.

In so far as the notion of god you invented is coherent, it is no longer god. But that ne notion of god is itself not so coherent. — Banno

The notion I suggested is a POSSIBILITY If you want to pretend it is not a possibility, fine with me. People who assert "there are no gods" and people who assert "there is at least one GOD" just swing that way.

Enjoy it.

But why bother. — Banno

You should answer that, Banno. You appear to be the one bothering...and bothered.

180 Proof
1.7k
Okay!

I do not know whether others know or do not know what I do not know.

It is my opinion [ ... ]

In my opinion [ ... ]

But, I acknowledge that I do not know whether anyone else k[no]ws what I do not know about that also.

That wasn't so hard, 180.
— Frank Apisa
Confession, they say, is good for the soul. Thanks, Frank. — 180 Proof

No "confession." l I have acknowledged that dozens upon dozes of times...in many Internet discussions. I especially acknowledge it with theists...who at least MAY KNOW there is a GOD. A GOD could reveal itself...although whenever I encounter a theist asserting that his/her god HAS revealed itself, I normally ask, "How do you KNOW you are not deluding yourself?" And usually, I cut off the discussion. No way to discuss that.

As for people who assert "there are no gods" I normally acknowledge it the way I did up above. BUT in order for a person to KNOW there are no gods, one would almost have to be a god him/herself. No human can actually KNOW there are no gods. At best, one can just guess. (No shortage of that on the Internet.)

Banno
9.1k
↪180 Proof :up:

Why, oh, why, is it so hard for people to simply acknowledge, "I do not know?"
— Frank Apisa

The notion is incoherent. As such, it's not the sort of thing that could be known; moreover, it's not even the sort of thing that could not be known. It's not a sort of thing...

Neither Snark nor Boojum...

In order to proceed, it's up to you to tell us what god is, in a way that makes sense. Until then, this conversation cannot progress. — Banno

Considering the way this comment is addressed, I am not sure if you are asking me or 180.

If you are addressing it to me...I've given the answer a least a half-dozen times already.

Here are three of my answers again (all variations on the same theme.)

When I use the word "god" or "gods" in these discussions, I mean:

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.

180 Proof
1.7k
Why, oh, why, is it so hard for people to simply acknowledge, "I do not know?"
— Frank Apisa
Given several months of doggedly refusing to directly or indirectly corroborate your claim that 'all positions for or against "gods" are "blind guesses"', it's reasonable to ask you, Frank, also to answer:

Why is it so hard for YOU to simply acknowledge "I do not know whether or not others know what I don't know"?

:victory: :sweat: — 180 Proof

Okay!

I do not know whether others know or do not know what I do not know.

It is my opinion that anyone who asserts "There is a GOD" is asserting a blind guess that there is a GOD...almost certainly their GOD.

In my opinion that anyone who asserts "There are no gods" is almost certainly asserting a blind guess. Knowing that is just about impossible. But, I acknowledge that I do not know whether anyone else knjows what I do not know about that also.

That wasn't so hard, 180. I've done it dozens of times in various fora.

Sir2u
2.2k
Personally, I would have to agree with anyone that states that there are many gods.

The christians say that there is a god, even if they don't know his real name.
The muslims say that there is a god.
the hindus believe that there is a god, even if they are not sure about all of its forms.

So why should there not be lots of gods? If one is possible so then are more. I bet that if someone opened a temple to worship Thor there would be plenty of people there. I might even be tempted to go if Zeus opened shop around here.

I just watched a press conference where one particular god was invoked in supplication. I watched the Democratic Party National Convention...and at least one god was called upon often...and from what I've read about the Republican Party National Convention...they were doing the same.
— Frank Apisa

Desperate people do desperate things in desperate times. — Sir2u

Desperate people do, indeed, do desperate things.

But we do not know if there is a single god...many gods...or no gods. We do not know what the REALITY is.

Why is it so difficult for humans to simply acknowledge that they do not know?

Banno
9.1k
The "Beats the hell out of me" group should be the largest BY FAR.
— Frank Apisa

I think it evident that philosophers, as a result of their critical eye, look to coherence. The notion of God is incoherent.

Those who accept a christian or islamic god appear able to live with contradiction.

Others have sought to re-describe god in various ways in attempts to achieve coherence; but most see this as special pleading.

It's not surprising. — Banno

Thank you, Banno.

I doubt, however, that "I do not know what the REALITY is" is special pleading. Nor is the concept, "Something quite different" considered incoherent?

Why, oh, why, is it so hard for people to simply acknowledge, "I do not know?"

I often say that if "being a Christian" means "a person who thinks the teachings attributed to Jesus are worth taking to heart"...

...then I am a Christian.

I know lots of "non-Christians" who feel that way...and who wish the people who call themselves "Christians" would feel that way about the teachings attributed to Jesus.

Just sayin'.

JerseyFlight
214
Don't get angry.
— Frank Apisa

??? :cool: — JerseyFlight

"...the same cannot be said about the matter you ate for breakfast."

Seemed like a zinger. Maybe I was wrong.

JerseyFlight
209
You are essentially saying "A fictional character is a fictional character."
— Frank Apisa

That is not the argument, the argument is that there is no concretion to the substance, and the idea is itself entirely contingent (and proceeds from) man's symbolic structure, the same cannot be said about the matter you ate for breakfast. — JerseyFlight

Don't get angry. That makes you want to make word salads that are undigestable.

You WERE saying that a fictional character is a fictional character.

And I was agreeing with you. They are.

I can only speak for myself, Eric, but I do not know how “existence” came to be…or if it always has been.

This thing we humans call “the universe” may not be all that exits…in fact, it may not even be MOST of what exists.

The question, “Are there any gods involved in existence?” (which often is stated, “Do any gods exist?”…is not a “nonsense” question, as your comments indicate you deem it to be. (This is one of the areas where we diverge.)

The question, “What is ALL THIS about?” essentially is the ultimate question of philosophy. (Perhaps the only question…or the question at the base of all other questions.)

To suppose one theoretical possibility (at least one god exists or no gods exist) is not a possibility (is impossible) makes no sense.

If I were to accept your opinion that “God exists” is a nonsense poetic comment…I would have to accept that my take on the question, “I do not know if any gods exist” is also a nonsense poetic comment.

It isn’t…not by a long shot.

The problem here may not be one of words or meanings…but rather of the general reluctance of humans to acknowledge they do not know what they do not know.

Interesting conversation going on. I’m enjoying reading it.

In the first instance, the very formation of the Phantom-Deity is itself the outcome of a thinking process, without this process there is no Phantom. — JerseyFlight

So you are suggesting that something invented...is invented, or a "product of thought.

Okay...I guess that makes sense, but why even bother pointing that out. You are essentially saying "A fictional character is a fictional character."

Then you go on to say something else rather obvious...that without the thought, the "invented something" would not exist. In other words, without the "thoughts" Mark Twain invested in Huckleberry Finn...there would be no Huckleberry Finn"

Also okay. But...what is the point?

Finally, you seem to suggest that, therefore, no kids who do the kinds of things that Huck did...exist?

Wow! Bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say?

Yeah, there are people moving out, but it still is the most exciting city in the world. My wife and I do the Chelsea Piers...and take lots of evening jazz cruises down to the Statue...and around up the East River under the Brooklyn Bridge.

Here's the sight we all look forward to:

Just chanced on this thread.

Good pix.

I'm a Central Park guy myself. Used to spend as much time there as possible. Not so much an more...and with the coronavirus...even less. I like Chelsea's waterfront area. The Frying Pan is a favorite watering hole...where I meet up with some of my friends from other forums where I post.

The City is great...and not nearly as rude as some want to pain it.

Good points everyone.

But back to the question asked in the title of the thread:

My position on the arguments for "God" (if a god exists) is the same as my position on the arguments for "there are no gods"...namely, both of those positions are merely guesses about the REALITY.

Gods may exist...or there may be no gods.

We do not know...and I can think of no way to make a meaningful guess in either direction.

I respect the guesses of others...and acknowledge that more than likely, one of them (There is at least one god/There are no gods) is correct.

For me...I'll stick with "I do not know everything that does or does not exist in the REALITY."

DoppyTheElv
69
IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it.
— Frank Apisa
I think the usage of supernatural here is doing us a disservice. It seems more as if you guys are actually talking about reality as a whole. i.e if something exists it is part of reality. — DoppyTheElv

I

If you think it helps to substitute "is a part of REALITY" for "exists"...fine with me, D.

My argument remains the same.

If a thing is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive it or not. If a "god" is a part of REALITY...it is a part of REALITY whether humans can perceive or sense it. The ability of humans to perceive it is not more significant to that than the fact that an ant in the backyard cannot.

Nothing that "is a part of REALITY" is supernatural...just as nothing that exists is SUPERNATURAL.

Not sure of what that changes about my argument, but if I am missing something, give me indication of what it is and I'll respond.

180 Proof
1.6k
... anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.

That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides.
— Frank Apisa
How do you know this? Why do you define "supernatural" this way?

Maybe all that "super-natural" means is higher dimensional e.g. 3-d sphere in relation to a 2-d square? or gas vapor in relation to solid ice? or noise in relation to signal? where the first term has more (countable or even uncountable) degrees of freedom than the second term.

I agree that 'impossible objects' do not exist in so far as their predicates are self-contradictory or they contain inconsistent properties (Meinong); but - if by "nature" what's meant is an ordered dynamic self-generative (computable) system complex enough for self-aware agent-subsystems to emerge - that does not preclude 'nature beyond nature' such as, for instance, 'our nature nested within greater natures' like matroyshka dolls.

If there are "gods", Frank, to say they are "super-natural" might mean only that such entities exist at near-infinite distances (Epicurus) from us, from Earth, from the Milky Way, from this universe, which, maybe once upon an eon ago, they somehow left to traverse the multiverse (or "the bulk" that is between and encompasses countless "branes"). I don't see anything conceptually problematic with calling travelers between universes - cosmic nature-systems - "super-natural" in this sense (rather than in the woo-woo "occult" or "religious" senses) and therefore call them "gods" (certainly in relation to flatlanders like human beings). — 180 Proof

I understand what you are saying here, 180...but I stand by what I wrote.

If a thing exists...it exists. If it is outside the realm of what humans can discern...it still exists; it is as much a part of nature as the smallest and largest of the matryoshka dolls are part of a Matroyshka Doll.

My point on this issue is that using the term "supernatural" as evidence that "gods" do not exist...is useless. I stipulate that supernatural things do not exist...if "supernatural" is absurdly defined as "anything that humans cannot perceive or sense."

But to suppose that EVERYTHING that actually exists CAN be perceived or sensed by humans is itself absurd.

Punshhh
2k
↪Frank Apisa
That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."
I entirely agree. Some people think though that the supernatural element is the creation of something out of nothing. — Punshhh

Yup...the something out of (a special kind of) nothing...has always been a bugaboo with me too. If the idea of gods seems absurd to a person, how does the idea of something coming from nothing not also seem absurd?

rickyk95
53
I truly believe that Sam Harris is the smartest philosopher alive, the clarity and precision of his insights is impressive. Although this is certainly not the case, he appears to be almost infallible. I dont want to sound like a fan boy but, can you thnk of anyone whose books I could read, or videos I could watch who is more brilliant and insightful than him? He is just so logical and mathematical with his arguments, I always try to come with counterarguments to what he says but what he says simply makes a lot of sense! What other people like him could I follow? — rickyk95

Sam Harris and all the other proselytizing atheists...are simply pitching a different compound of the snake oil theists sell.

Nothing wrong with doing so. I mean that sincerely.

And I suppose there is nothing wrong with folk like you thinking that some people are more adept at selling the oil than others.

But when you take off the packaging...all you have is snake oil.

Natural vs. supernatural
What do we mean when we say something is a natural phenomena? In it's simplest form we mean that this phenomena is part of the physical universe we live in and can observe. Matter & energy & space & time. — EricH

That is the essence of my problem with the term "supernatural."

IF there are things that we humans cannot "observe" (sense or perceive in any way);..those things are as much a part of nature as the things we can observe, sense, or perceive. The fact that we cannot observe, sense, or perceive them does not change the fact that they exist. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that exists (if it exists) is a part of nature independent of whether we (very limited) humans can detect it.

Essentially, something we humans cannot detect...is merely a thing (or things) that we cannot detect...not something that is "other than natural" or supernatural.

Therefore anything "supernatural" essentially means something that exists that does not exist.

That is asking for a circle with corners...or triangles with four sides.

We've all (including me for the most part) have been making a nomenclature mistake by using the term.

If there are gods (i,e, if a god exists or if gods exist) which is something we do not know...then the question of whether the gods are supernatural makes no sense. It is something we must eliminate from the equation. Eliminating it from both sides of the conversation is a must.

The people positing the possible existence of gods must accept that if gods exist...THEY EXIST. They are not "supernatural." They are simply things that exist...but that humans cannot detect.

People positing that the existence of gods is impossible...are, in effect, positing that a circle cannot have corners.

To which the only answer should be..."I agree, but so what? I agree that if gods exist, they EXIST, which means they are as much a part of nature as apples or hills or thoughts."

Insofar as a theists suggests that their god exists, they are acknowledging that it is natural...NOT supernatural. The term supernatural is more a substitute for "but cannot be detected by humans."

(ASIDE: As was pointed out earlier, the god of the Bible CAN be detected by humans...or at least by some humans.)

180 Proof
1.6k
I am certain that I do not know [ ... ]
— Frank Apisa
All well and good, Frank, but your mantra in no way is incompatible with, or even invalidates, the claim "I am certain that I do know [ ... ]" the very same things you insist you don't know - which amounts to a distinction without a cognitive difference. And, despite whatever you call yourself (i.e. whatever self-"descriptors" you use), you've long since confessed that your modus vivendi is indistingishuable from that of any garden-variety "atheist", so you're just another godless nonbeliever, in practice, like (most) forum members.


*Happy Apostasy Day*, Old Man. :halo: — 180 Proof

I most assuredly am not an atheist...nor would I ever be one. I'd sooner adopt theist...a more ethical descriptor. But I am neither. My take on the question of whether there are any gods or not is:


I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is 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.

That seems to bother you.

I will discuss this for as long as you want, but from this point on I will only deal with you on this question in private messages. No reason for us to foul up this thread with our differences.

DoppyTheElv
64
↪Frank Apisa
Ah, sorry Frank I didnt notice this. Well I agree with your qualms with supernatural for the same reasons but I still dont see why, if we use that definition. Eric would say that its contradictory to say he exists. — DoppyTheElv

Thanks, D.

I use "gods" so the term "he exists" is not meaningful to my remarks.

I merely was responding to your comment about definitions of God (a god).

EricH is doing what I am doing...planting seeds that we hope one day will bear fruit.

I am certain that I do not know if gods exist (which is to say I do not know if the thing we humans call "the universe" was created or caused to be created by an entity or entities.)

I am certain that I do not know if no gods exist (which is to say I do not know if what we humans call "the universe" was either not created...or was created by means that does include "cause" by an entity or entities.

And I am certain that I do not have enough unambiguous evidence in either direction to make a meaningful guess on the matter.

Banno
9k
ANYTHING that is not established as impossible...is possible.
— Frank Apisa

That's wrong. There may be impossibilities that have not been established. — Banno

ANYTHING that is not established as impossible...is possible, Banno.

They are at least POSSIBLE.

Think about it.

NOS4A2
3.6k
↪JerseyFlight

Mao was a devout Marxist who sought to bring about communism. It’s right there in everything he wrote. No need for the revisionism. He and his revolutionaries stole land, often by murder, struggle session or by sending them to labor camps, for this stated purpose: “to eliminate feudal, exploitative land ownership by landlords and implement peasant land ownership, so as to free the rural labor force, develop agricultural production, and open the way for the industrialization of New China.”. What is this but one example of “the forcible overthrow of all existing social conditions”? the “violent overthrow of the bourgeoisie”?

But mostly I’m speaking about the concept of one class appropriating the land of another, the euphemism “nationalization”, which always brings about the contrary to Marx’s predictions. — NOS4A2

Ummm...just about every acre of land in America is stolen land. It has been fenced from person to person through the generations to the present.

Without land that was stolen...where would most Americans be?

DoppyTheElv
59
↪EricH
Im not a theist. Im not an atheist either. I just dont know.

But I never even once agreed with the notion that having a belief in God, faith, is entirely devoid of reason and logic. That just flies against all experience, which I grant is very little compared to a lot of you. I have had with belief personally and with others I have met.

Who in their right mind can honestly hope or believe in something without reasoning about it.
Yes God and religion can act as emotional support. But I could never ever convince myself to have faith in something without good reason. I cannot. I am also not convinced that arguments cannot rationally lead someone to sincerely believe God exists. I dont care about convincing others at all. I care about my own worldview and whether or not it is informed.

I simply feel that the brushing away of a serious philosophical view in such a manner is not right. Even if its in an academic minority.

Ive said many times that I barely know what I'm talking about and that its probably missing lots of philosophical vigour. So when I say I disagree with something its on a prima facie basis. I dont see how God and exist cannot be used in a sentence together. I dont see how it is a contradiction. Especially when, as evidenced in the ongoing discussions, we dont even have a proper definition of God around here. — DoppyTheElv

I've given a reasonable definition of a god...certainly one that could be used in discussions of this sort:

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

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.) 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.

As for the "Atheist, theist, agnostic" angle, my take is an agnostic one:

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 at least one god is 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.

Olivier5
189
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."
— Frank Apisa

Do you care explaining what you see as the formal and informal senses of the verb « to know »? For me it has one meaning only.

I would even venture to say that I know you understand what I am saying here...
— Frank Apisa

I do. I understand you’re trying to draw me in some sort of word game. But I am more interested in talking to you. — Olivier5

if my explanation of what I mean with an informal "I know" as: "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"...is not enough for you...you will have to go without a further explanation, because you simply do not want to understand.

A formal I know will probably be limited to a solipsistic "I know the thing I call "I" exists."

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

It's okay Frank let it go ... let it go... breathe deep... — 3017amen

Amateur stuff you are spewing there, Amen.

But...I guess you've gotta go with what you have.

3017amen
2.3k
But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says.
— Frank Apisa

I'm not following that Frank. Take a deep breath and think about what you just said. You critiqued the syllogism by ranting. In other words, you claimed foul, then suggested that you're not even knowledgeable enough to understand that which you disapproved. Frank, I'm starting to get worried brother...sorry, but how old are you again? — 3017amen

I am 84, Amen.

You are not worried at all. You are attempting an insult...and doing it like a kid playing in a sandbox might do.

Your premises are false. (Look up false premises.) Actually, they are gratuitous...aiming for the result you want.

Your arguments are poor...which is the reason I often overlooked your attempts to agree with my posts. There are times I want to yell out..."Amen, be on someone else's side, not mine."

Anyway, you are correct in pointing out the errors in your opponents who are arguing from an atheistic position. Their arguments ARE filled with errors. But you fail to see the SAME ERRORS in what you argue.

That really was a piss poor attempt at a syllogism. But don't take my word for it...offer it to a logician at a university. They deserve a belly laugh, too.

3017amen
2.3k
Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer.
— Frank Apisa

Is that another way of saying you lost and are throwing in the towel? Gee Frank, what a sore loser. I thought you had more integrity. Oh well, Karma is a mysterious thing. I think I understand now why the moderators closed that other thread that you did...it was indeed just another rant of sorts LOL

Be well my friend! — 3017amen

If it makes you feel better about yourself to suppose that pathetic excuse for a syllogism was a mortal blow of some sort...go for it. I want everyone to feel good about themselves.

But you really out to put the "syllogism" to a logician...and see what he/she says. :wink:

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Really? I don't understand. Okay must be my bad again. Well, can you make them sound for me? I mean, you seem to be an expert. I'll anxiously await your correction, thanks!

1.If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
2. But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
3. Therefore, there is a God.

•First, for anything that came into existence, there must have been something that caused it to come into existence. Clearly, effects have causes. Pretty basic, and entirely consistent with our common-sense experience of the world.
•Second, the material universe (the cosmos) came into existence sometime in the past. Virtually everyone affirms this point because of the widespread and, I think, justified belief in the Big Bang.
•Therefore, the material universe must have had a cause.

As an alternative (just trying to help) maybe go back to my list that I made for you and pick some other concept to parse, that might be easier (for you). (Some of those relate to a posteriori types of phenomenon/experiences rather than a priori and deduction.) — 3017amen

Amen...save the nonsense for someone willing to deal with it.

Contact a logician at a local university...and ask him/her to comment on your "syllogism."

You won't like the answer.

Peace!

I'm not a big 'morals/ethics' person, but here's the classic approach to the moral argument for God’s existence. Stated as a syllogism, it looks like this:

•If there is no God, then there is no objective morality (no lawmaker, then no laws).
•But there is objective morality (evidenced by the problem of evil).
•Therefore, there is a God. — 3017amen

That is without a doubt the WORST attempt at a syllogism EVER.

The form of the syllogism is valid (modus tollens), and the premises are true. Therefore, the argument is sound. — Amen

The premises...are a laugh.

At best...at very best...the P1 is false. (Actually, it is a gratuitous piece of nonsense.)

I did not suppose you were going to be absurd.

C'mon, get serious. If you just want to kid around...find something less serious to kick around.

No wonder these others have been laughing at you!

But this is where it gets interesting, while Marx is assuredly correct, the question arises, even though serious changes are required, will necessity be enough to bring about an intelligent restructuring? The danger is that though the needs exist, a chain of power determines to defy these needs regardless of the ramifications. — JerseyFlight

I suspect that the societal corrections will never even remotely resemble anything intelligent. There was societal restructuring that happened in France during the late 18th century...and societal restructuring that happened in Russia during the early 20th century. Neither was "intelligent"...both were torturous.

I think that is the way the restructuring or corrections have to occur.

We'll see...and probably sooner than most suspect.

Right now here in America, the wealthiest 1% owns 40% of the nations wealth. The bottom 80% (80%!!!) own only 7% of the wealth.

It is a social disaster waiting to happen.

Unfortunately, a decent percentage of the population sees this as a non-problem.

Not sure of what percentages would change those folk.

Would the top 1% owning 80% of the wealth finally make a difference to the indifferent?

I suspect not.

So the solution will probably be a variation of the French or Russian solutions mentioned above.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

Sorry dude, you gotta do some homework. This isn't remedial philosophy class. If you're arguing EOG, you gotta come to the table with the basic's. Sorry, do the necessary training (or read my response to Tim). — 3017amen

Give me the P1 and P2 that arrive at a C of "Therefore there is a god."

HINT: You can no mare do that than the people who assert "There are no gods" can come up with a P1 and P2 that arrives at a C of "Therefore there are no gods."

It cannot be done.

If one of those other guys want to play your game...good for you.

I don't.

3017amen
2.3k
↪Frank Apisa

I'll refer you to the Anselm's ontological argument. Goggle it and get back to me. Or, see my response to Tim. — 3017amen

If you have a reply to me...give it.

If you want to send me on a treasure hunt of some sort...I decline.

3017amen
2.3k
For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally.
— Frank Apisa

Frank! With all due respect, using that reasoning, you would have to prove that all historical accounts are either; true, false, half-true or half-false ad nauseum.

As a side note, what does it mean, in this context, to be illogical? — 3017amen

Here is you "conclusion" Amen.

Therefore there is a God.

With that as a C...please give me the P1 and P2 (that includes "the Bible says so) that gets you to that C.

When you realize that it cannot be done...

...you will have shown yourself why it is illogical.

3017amen
2.3k
Are you a Christian?
— JerseyFlight

Frank's an Agnostic — 3017amen

I prefer to think of myself as agnostic...rather than as "an Agnostic." I know I sometimes use the Agnostic shortcut, but I will attempt to be more careful in the future.

3017amen
2.3k
The "historical" account of Jesus...is NOT an historical account of Jesus
— Frank Apisa

I don't understand why you would deny that it's a historical account. What title or concept would you categorize or give to it? — 3017amen

I cannot understand how anyone can consider it to be an historical account. It does have some history in it, I concede that. It mentions ancient Egypt and ancient Rome...and we know those places existed. It mentions a Pharaoh and an Emperor as leaders of those places...and we know they were ruled by a Pharaoh and an Emperor. But Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventures also mention those places...and no one with any intelligence would consider that to be an historical account.

My best guess about the Bible is that it is pseudo-history (a mythology, if you will) of the early Hebrew people...a relatively unsophisticated, relatively unknowledgeable, superstitious people who had many enemies in the areas where they lived. Their enemies worshiped barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty gods. And to protect themselves from those gods, they invented an especially barbarous, vengeful, wrathful, unforgiving, demanding, murderous, petty god...and worshiped it. The New Testament followed in that tradition.

For you to suggest the Bible proves in any way that at least one god exists...is totally illogical.

Perhaps you ought to try you second best proof, because your "best proof" fails totally.

JerseyFlight
63
↪Frank Apisa

Are you a Christian? — JerseyFlight

No.