• Frank Apisa
    1.4k
    180 Proof
    843
    There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.
    — Frank Apisa
    Wrong again, Frankie! :sweat:
    180 Proof

    I repeat: "There is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods."

    Cite one example of 'divine' intervention in the world (i.e. miracle) ascribed uniquely (i.e. which cannot also be ascribed to natural forces or agents) to any g/G in any religious or philosophical tradition for which there is any corroborable evidence. Insofar as you can't - that there isn't any - THAT is "unambiguous evidence against the existence of gods" BECAUSE such evidence is entailed by 'divine predicates' attributed to it.

    To wit (as per tim wood's "magic hippopotami"): Absence of any evidence entailed by a g/G predicates is evidence of the absence of a g/G so predicated.
    — 180 Proof
    In others words, predicates of X entail search parameters for locating X (i.e. whether or not X exists where & when).

    E.g. (A) Elephant sitting on your lap ... (B) YHWH created the world in six days ... (C) In 2020 George Bush lives in the White House ... (D) UFOs take-off & land at JFK Airport ... etc

    So: absence of evidence entailed by (A/B/C/D) is evidence - entails - absence of (A/B/C/D): search (A) your lap, (B) the geophysics of the earth, (C) who is currently POTUS, and (D) control tower logs, arrival / departure gates & runways at JFK Airport ... :yawn:

    NB: Proof of 'proving a negative'.

    Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
    — SonOfAGun
    Strawman. :clap:

    My actual "argument", as sketched above, I've applied as a principle - criterion - for evaluating  any theistic conception of divinity and thereby I'm committed to anti-theism (which, therefore, excludes 'agnosticism' with respect to theism's truth-value (of its e.g. ontological claims)).
    — 180

    Like I said...there is absolutely no unambiguous evidence for or against the existence of gods.

    I have to infer that you agree with me on that...or you would have provided at least one piece of unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...which you didn't.
  • SonOfAGun
    119
    Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.180 Proof

    What are your arguments against Jordan Peterson's interpretations of theistic divinity?
  • SonOfAGun
    119
    Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.180 Proof

    I only ask because there is a lot of apologetics you have to get through to claim that "every theistic-type of g/G is fictional" and Jordan Peterson makes some of the best of these arguments. In fact JP's interpretations might not even be apologetics.
  • 180 Proof
    884
    What are your arguments against Jordan Peterson's interpretations of theistic divinity?SonOfAGun
    Summarize please.

    I only ask because there is a lot of apologetics you have to get through to claim that "every theistic-type of g/G is fictional"SonOfAGun
    As my previous post points out: If set T is empty, then members of set T are, at most, fictions. True or not true? If true, then your statement above is a non sequitur. If, by your light, not true, please show why not.

    Again (more precisely):

    If ~Type g/G (e.g. theistic conception of divinity) is true, then ~Token g/Gs of ~Type g/Gs (e.g. YHWH, Zeus, Wotan, Allah, etc) is necessarily true.

    Given this argument, "apologetics" - preaching to the (wannabe) choir / converted (à la Tertullian, Aquinas, Pascal, G.K. Chesterson, C.S. Lewis, Plantinga et al) - are completely irrelevant and beg the question.

    Basta! Go troll somewhere else ...

    You've offered nothing of any substance or, for that matter, philosophical interest for some time now. Stop embarrassing yourself, Frank. I've no interest in humoring you any longer. Thanks for all the fodder you've left for me to use as examples of how NOT to argue (or philosophize). Buonanotte signore ...

    :death: :flower:
  • SonOfAGun
    119
    Summarize please.180 Proof

    To complex for my little brain to do. Or at least I have not spent a life time thinking about it as he has.

    As my previous post points out: If set T is empty, then members of set T are, at most, fictions. True or not true? If true, then your statement above is a non sequitur. If, by your light, not true, please show why not.

    Again (more precisely):
    180 Proof

    He is definitely not working from an empty set. His God is defined.

    This is him at his best. They do eventually get to god, but they work through a lot of definitions and first principals first:

    Part 1:

    Part 2:

    Part 3:

    Part 4:
  • 180 Proof
    884
    You can't be serious. :rofl:
  • SonOfAGun
    119
    ↪SonOfAGun You can't be serious. :rofl:180 Proof

    I am not sure what you mean? Serious about what?
  • Frank Apisa
    1.4k
    ↪Frank Apisa Basta! Go troll somewhere else ...

    You've offered nothing of any substance or, for that matter, philosophical interest for some time now. Stop embarrassing yourself, Frank. I've no interest in humoring you any longer. Thanks for all the fodder you've left for me to use as examples of how NOT to argue (or philosophize). Buonanotte signore ...
    180 Proof

    I have offered more of substance than you are able to digest.


    Insofar as "god" is undefined, the statement "god is false" says nothing but "@^%*# is false" (i.e. nonsense). Otherwise, if 'theism is false' is true, then every theistic-type of g/G is fictional - that's my position.180 Proof

    Horse shit.

    If the definition of "god" is such a problem...why not change the question to what is actually being asked...because the question, "Are there any gods or are there no gods?"...is merely a way of asking, "Do YOU know EVERYTHING that exists in the REALITY of existence?"

    So do you?

    DO YOU KNOW EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...which by extension mean "know what does not exist?"

    DO YOU?

    HINT: No you do not.
  • Pinprick
    97
    The other is that I’m not saying belief is about thing existing vs them not-existing, but rather it is about the topic of whether or not something exists.Pfhorrest

    I don’t understand the difference between the two here. The topic of whether or not something exists consists of that thing existing, or not.

    You where taught how to interpret the data every time your mom shoved a boob in your moth to stop you from crying, when you where hungry, and had no idea what it meant. You also have conducted many experiments concerning how to interpret pain and where guided in this process by your parents, even though you may not remember doing any of this, it did happen.SonOfAGun

    This is where I think I see science as something more strict than simply being taught something. I would probably say the same thing about your use of the word experiment. I know for a fact that I haven’t set up any legitimate scientific experiment on myself regarding pain. I haven’t made hypotheses, controlled for variables, etc. I don’t think experiment can be reduced to just experience, which is precisely what I have regarding pain. I have experienced pain, therefore I know pain.

    You are moving the goal post again. Now we are talking about your reflexes, which ARE instinctive. This is not related to the current topic because reflexes are not any kind of knowledge. You seem to be drifting in this conversation. Are sure you are not loosing the through line here?SonOfAGun

    My mistake. But, once I instinctively react I know why I reacted the way I did (due to pain), without having to know the “science” (biology, physiology, chemistry, or physics) behind it.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    I don’t understand the difference between the two here. The topic of whether or not something exists consists of that thing existing, or not.Pinprick

    You seemed to be considering “thinking that something does not exist” as a different category from “thinking that something exists”. I’m considering the single category of “thinking about whether or not things exist”. Any answer (yes or no) to the question “does x exist?” is a belief. Which answer you give doesn’t make a difference as to whether thinking that answer constitutes a belief or not.
  • Pinprick
    97

    Oh, I see. So, then my question would be wouldn’t that mean we would have to define belief, at least when talking about existence, as X as well as ~X? X being “exists.” If so, that is an issue logically.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    No? Honestly I can’t really understand you here.

    Having any opinion about the existence status of anything constitutes a belief. You can believe that something exist, or believe that it doesn’t exist, it’s still a belief.
  • Pinprick
    97

    Think of it in terms of categories. You have one category that consists of beliefs (B), and one that consists of it’s opposite, nonbeliefs (~B). If X (the thought that Y exists) falls under category B, then it’s opposite, ~X (the thought that Y does not exist), must fall under category ~B. X and ~X cannot both logically fall under the same category.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    I guess you didn’t understand my disambiguation at all earlier.

    Consider, for analogy, thoughts about colors. You can have thoughts about red colors, or thoughts about nonred colors, but those are all thoughts about colors. Call thoughts about colors “coliefs”. You could, instead, have thoughts about something else entirely, not about color at all, and those thoughts would not be “coliefs”. But any thought about colors, whether it’s about red or nonred colors, is a “colief”.

    Do I need to spell out the analogy?
  • Alvin Capello
    53
    Perhaps it should also be mentioned that Graham Priest in his work entitled “One” posits Nothingness as a rather special kind of object; special in the sense that it is both an object and not an object.

    So perhaps the concern you raise in your OP is not really so much of a concern after all?
  • Pinprick
    97
    So you’re just categorizing things differently. Instead of beliefs and nonbeliefs, it’s “thoughts about existence” and “thoughts not about existence.” All beliefs fall under the former, and nonbeliefs under the latter. Both “X exists” and “X doesn’t exist” are thoughts about existence, and therefore are beliefs.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    Correct. Glad we finally understand.
  • Pinprick
    97
    Good. Then I guess the next question is whose categorization is correct. I’m really not sure how to go about justifying one categorization over the other. I guess it’s a question of determining if “thoughts about existence” fall under “beliefs,” or vice versa...
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    Whose meaning is correct is just a matter of whose meaning corresponds to the history of usage. It makes no difference as to whether the opinions under discussion are correct or not, so long as we can understand each other about what those are.

    You were in agreement so long as when I said “think” I didn’t mean “believe”. It’s clear now that zi obviously do, because to think something about whether or not something exists is to believe something, as I understand the word. (And I’d argue as ordinary English speakers understand it too, but that doesn’t really matter). If you import something else into the meaning of the word “believe”, that’s on you, and not part of what I meant (and I have no idea what more you might mean).
  • Frank Apisa
    1.4k


    Seems to me it would make sense to state what is being stated without characterizing it as "I belief" or "I think"...and just stating what is attempting to be communicated.

    If you are speculating or supposing or guessing something...say , "I speculate/suppose/guess that..."

    Wouldn't that clear things up?

    Saying "I think such and such" is as much a disguise for "I suppose/speculate/guess such and such" as is "I 'believe' such and such."

    Easy to understand why someone would suppose the two to be the same.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    Thinking or believing is broader than speculating/supposing/guessing. You are trying to pigeonhole every opinion into a blind guess. They aren't, and it isn't necessary for them to be to define the relevant categories.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.4k
    Pfhorrest
    1.5k
    Thinking or believing is broader than speculating/supposing/guessing. You are trying to pigeonhole every opinion into a blind guess. They aren't, and it isn't necessary for them to be to define the relevant categories.
    Pfhorrest

    Nah...opinions are opinions. If you express an opinion as "I 'believe' such and such"...you are disguising the fact that it is an opinion. Much better to say, "My opinion is that...such and such."

    I know, I know...the old "one trick pony!"

    But this is incredibly important in almost every discussion of this sort...and you guys are just not getting it.

    Really give it some thought.

    And stay safe.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    Knowledge is a kind of belief.

    A guess is also a kind of belief.

    A belief is a kind of opinion.

    An intention is also a kind of opinion.

    Beliefs and intentions are both kinds of thoughts.

    Thoughts are kinds of opinions.

    Feelings are also kinds of opinions.

    Desires and perceptions are kinds of feelings.

    You're really not getting some basic things like subset relations and modalities here.
  • Frank Apisa
    1.4k
    Pfhorrest
    1.5k
    Knowledge is a kind of belief.
    Pfhorrest

    No it isn't.

    A guess is also a kind of belief. — Phorrest

    This may seem a diversion from the thread topic, but it is NOT.

    If that is so, why do you suppose people who are making a guess...A PURELY BLIND GUESS...about whether or not any gods exist...

    ...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"

    When is the last time you heard someone say, "I guess (in) God."

    Or, "I guess there are no gods."

    Or, "I guess it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one."

    When is the last time you heard anyone say, "I VERY FIRMLY guess there are no gods?...or, "I VERY FIRMLY guess...in anything?"

    Can you not see that most people think there is a substantial difference between "guess" and "believe/belief" in that area...and that it is reconcilable? Can you not see that most will never acknowledge the difference...nor will they acknowledge the subterfuge involved in using "believe/belief" rather than "guess?"

    Do you not see that it is philosophically significant?
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Pfhorrest

    No it isn't.
    Frank Apisa

    You evidently have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. "Justified true belief" has been the standard definition of "knowledge" (only recently challenged) for the past 2400 years or so.

    [Why do people] ...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"Frank Apisa

    Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do.
  • Pinprick
    97
    Well, it seems relevant to the discussion to come to some sort of agreement (if possible). If you’re correct, then it is possible to have beliefs that something doesn’t exist, as all beliefs would fall under the category of “thoughts about existence.” For the sake of furthering the discussion, I’ll take the position that the category of “beliefs” is actually larger, and would therefore encompass “thoughts about existence,” as well as other things. Therefore the proper categories would be “belief” and “nonbelief,” where thoughts that affirm the existence of something fall under the former, and thoughts that deny the existence of something fall under the latter.
  • Pinprick
    97
    Nah...opinions are opinions. If you express an opinion as "I 'believe' such and such"...you are disguising the fact that it is an opinion. Much better to say, "My opinion is that...such and such."

    I know, I know...the old "one trick pony!"

    But this is incredibly important in almost every discussion of this sort...and you guys are just not getting it.

    Really give it some thought.

    And stay safe.
    Frank Apisa

    I have no issue acknowledging that my beliefs are opinions, unless they are facts. But I don’t consider anything I’ve said I believed or thought in this discussion as fact.
  • Pinprick
    97
    Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do.Pfhorrest

    :up:

    BTW, the distinction I make between “think” and “believe” is mainly a matter of confidence in whatever it is I’m saying being true. When I say I believe something, I mean that I am very confident that it is true. When I say I think something, I mean that I am somewhat confident that it is true, but not fully so.
  • Pfhorrest
    1.6k
    that’s not a larger category its a smaller one and what words we use doesn’t make any difference to the underlying thing in question so i don’t care if you want to misuse the word “belief” it doesn’t matter go ahead
  • Frank Apisa
    1.4k
    Pfhorrest
    1.5k
    Knowledge is a kind of belief. — Pfhorrest

    No it isn't.
    — Frank Apisa

    You evidently have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever. "Justified true belief" has been the standard definition of "knowledge" (only recently challenged) for the past 2400 years or so.
    Pfhorrest

    So...because we disagree...that means I have no knowledge of philosophy whatsoever???

    And you think YOU have knowledge of philosophy!

    If you understood philosophy, Pfhorrest, you would never make such an ignorant comment.

    The term "justified true belief" is one of the bullshit philosophical pieces of garbage that are around and will always be around...right up there with Pascal's Wager and Occam's Razor...the kind of drivel that people who cannot truly reason use.

    They are essentially useless concepts.



    [Why do people] ...almost NEVER use "guess" rather than "believe/belief?"
    — Frank Apisa

    Because we're not guessing. We're inferring. Maybe fallibly. We might be wrong. But we generally think we have reasons to believe the things we do.
    — Pfhorrest

    Well it is obvious you are unwilling to acknowledge guessing when you are guessing and want to hide the fact that you are guessing.

    And that is why "justified true belief" is NOT knowledge...because often...you are wrong.

    If you are making a statement that "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist"...YOU ARE GUESSING...and the guess is a blind guess. Almost nobody ever making one of those statements ever uses "I guess..."...but instead uses "I believe... ."

    What I asserted stands.

    If you guess there is nothing (colloquial "nothing") in the drawer...and there is a box of tissues in the drawer...you are wrong.
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.