• Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    I posit that anything that exists (whether we humans know or do not know it exists) is a part of nature. IT EXISTS. The notion of supernatural (meaning outside of what exists) [i[makes no sense[/i] to me.

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

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

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


    AS FOR ALBERT EINSTEIN:

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


    AS FOR STEPHEN HAWKING:


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


    AS FOR CARL SAGAN:


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


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




    Stop with YOUR bull, 180. You are embarrassing yourself.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k


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

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

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

    Here's one back atcha: :razz:
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.Frank Apisa
    But you're not correct, Frank. That's what so laughable. You're so wrong because your statements on this topic are, more often than not, not even false. :lol:
  • Pinprick
    950
    You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics.Frank Apisa

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

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

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

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

    Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

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

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

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

    I mean why would it be more likely to fall towards the Earth? If it’s because the laws of physics make it more likely to do so, then you’re implying that it is unlikely for the laws of physics to be violated, which is precisely the same logic I’m using to show why it’s unlikely that any Gods exist.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.Pinprick
    At best, Frank's "science depends on faith" depends on faith (even, or especially, to him). Bet you two bits, Pinprick, nothing remotely like the explanation you're asking of him will be forthcoming. Here comes another (more or less) "Because I say so" ...
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    A person with a bit of ethical backbone would have simply acknowledged that I was correct. Even a LITTLE TINY bit of ethical backbone.
    — Frank Apisa
    But you're not correct, Frank. That's what so laughable. You're so wrong because your statements on this topic are, more often than not, not even false. :lol:
    180 Proof

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

    Anyway...of course I am correct.

    But you still are not ethical enough to concede it.

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

    Poor them.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Pinprick
    238
    You are the one making the assertion that the existence of a god would violate physics.
    — Frank Apisa

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

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

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

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

    Then explain how science depends on faith instead of reason.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

    That should be a clue that you are kidding yourself. I doubt you will take it.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    ... one cannot logically or scientifically ...

    Some people blindly guess one way or the other ... and just cannot acknowledge they are blindly guessing.
    — Frank Apisa
    @Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn:
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    ... one cannot logically or scientifically ...

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

    Yup...I told the truth.

    I coulda told you that!
  • Pinprick
    950
    You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done.Frank Apisa

    Lol, logic is stubborn...

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

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

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

    Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

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

    Enjoy your just deserts Frank. Bon appetit. :vomit:
  • Pinprick
    950
    Pinprick :point: Told ya! :yawn:180 Proof

    :roll:
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Pinprick
    239
    You are not using logic to show it is unlikely that any gods exist. You are using stubbornness to show that you do not have the ethical qualities needed to acknowledge that it cannot be done.
    — Frank Apisa

    Lol, logic is stubborn...

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

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

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

    Yup...just insults and mocking comments.

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

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


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

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

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

    It is actually fun to watch.

    My guess is you will wake up to the truth at some point. It will be stunning when the realization hits. I hope you are not repairing a roof...or sawing at a tree branch on a ladder when it happens.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    @DingoJones & @Pinprick -

    Mister Frank is completely effin' delusional. :roll:

    ... pretending you are reaching your "beliefs" (your blind guesses) via science and logic ...if the pretense helps make you feel safe...

    It is actually fun to watch.
    Frank Apisa
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k


    It is not I who is delusional.

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

    ...YOU are delusional.

    But if you want to kid yourself...be my guest. It truly is fun to watch.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Happy Summer Solstice!

    Stop trolling & projecting.

    :mask: :victory:
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    ↪Frank Apisa Happy Solstice!

    Stop trolling & projecting.
    180 Proof

    Happy Solstice back at you, 180.

    I am not trolling or projecting. I started this thread. I reply to all postings. Please continue to post. I enjoy replying to your comments.
  • Sunlight
    9
    Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

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

    I also can't figure out why anyone would want to set the bar any lower.
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Too bad such crystal clear reasoning is and, no doubt, will be wasted on the resident "bar lowering" troll; well, join the club: Welcome to TPF!
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    ↪Sunlight Too bad such crystal clear reasoning is and, no doubt, will be wasted on the resident "bar lowering" troll; well, join the club: Welcome to TPF!
    180 Proof

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

    Okay...ya gotta deal with your type if you want to discussing issues on the Internet.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    Sunlight
    2
    Have not read through everything posted so far but I thought I'd throw in my two cents anyways.

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

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

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

    Or are you just trying to eliminate the question by suggesting it to be "misguided?"
  • BrendanCount
    7
    As for Gods...

    The knowledge of them..is there category..

    So if we think those categories are alive..then yes..all those Gods exist.. not just as categories of knowledge but as individual beings..
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    Ah, my friend, I didn't name names; now you're just telling on your own self and projecting that on me as bad manners and whatnot. But anyway, Frank, since you went there - casting your usual morning aspersions - how about proving me/us wrong about you and "raise the bar" up to @Sunlight's height. If you dare. If you ain't too scared. :smirk:
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    ↪Frank Apisa Ah, my friend, I didn't name names; now you're just telling on your own self and projecting that on me as bad manners and whatnot. But anyway, Frank, since you went there - casting your usual morning aspersions - how about proving me/us wrong about you and "raise the bar" up to Sunlight's height. If you dare. If you ain't too scared. :smirk:
    180 Proof

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

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

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

    Both are nothing but blind guesses.

    I get a kick out of atheists pretending their blind guess is something more.
  • Sunlight
    9
    The responses to this and other posts from Pinprick and jorndoe were disappointing. Props for trying, @180 Proof. At the very least, Frank's frequent evasions might serve as light entertainment to passersby. I won't be taking a swing, though. :victory:
  • 180 Proof
    13.9k
    I had to give you another chance to prove me/us wrong and again you whiffed.

    Good on @Sunlight :up: - s/he knows flypaper when s/he sees it.
  • Frank Apisa
    2.1k
    180 Proof
    1.3k
    ↪Frank Apisa I had to give you another chance to prove me/us wrong and again you whiffed.

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

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

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

    You really shouldn't let the fact that you are as much a "believer" as any theist bother you so. Bad for your blood pressure.
1678910Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.