Scroll up or flip back to previous pages and read my "evidence".

180 Proof
831
"What can be asserted without evidence can also be dismissed without evidence." ~Christopher Hitchens

When discussing the question of "Does at least one god exist...or are there no gods that exist"...the words, "I believe..." ...is nothing more than a disguise for, "I blindly guess... ."
— Frank Apisa
Another "blind guess" (i.e. assertion without corroborating evidence or sound argument), Frankie? :roll: — 180 Proof

No. A blind guess about whether or not there is a god...IS a blind guess.

Calling it a "blind guess" is not a blind guess. If it makes you feel better to consider it to be an informed guess...fine with me.

Scroll up or flip back to previous pages and read my "evidence". — 180 Proof

You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this.

You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this. — SonOfAGun

Better yet: I'll make a sound argument. But will you understand it? (Frankie surely doesn't.) :sweat:

But will you understand? (Frankie surely doesn't.) :sweat: — 180 Proof

Can you give me a page number. Yes I am good at comprehends.

180 Proof
833
You have evidence for the nonexistence of god! I got to see this.
— SonOfAGun
But will you understand? (Frankie surely doesn't.) :sweat: — 180 Proof

I seem to be getting under your skin.

Usually not this easy to do.

Are you new to Internet discussions?

:wink:

I recognize that they provide bullshit rationalizations for their blind guesses that either "at least one god exists" or "no gods exist."

Some people have an allergy to "I do not know." — Frank Apisa

I wouldn't call all such rationalizations "bullshit". Ordinarily I reserve that term to characterize discourse in which a speaker does not seem to give a damn about the truth or falsity or reasonableness of their claims. This usage may be in keeping with Frankfurt's flirtatious little essay on the subject.

Consider his distinction between honest speakers, liars, and bullshitters:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false. For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose. — Harry G. Frankfurt

I aim to follow this admirable terminological convention in my use of the term "bullshit".

I like to reserve the term "horseshit" as an upgrade: For instance to characterize the desperate flailing of a narcissistic bullshit artist who has been cornered by reasonable discourse, and proceeds to kick up a cloud of horseshit in an attempt to avoid accountability for the bullshit he has already released in conversation.

:up:

Stop trolling.

I aim to follow this admirable terminological convention in my use of the term "bullshit".

I like to reserve the term "horseshit" as an upgrade: For instance to characterize the desperate flailing of a narcissistic bullshit artist who has been cornered by reasonable discourse, and proceeds to kick up a cloud of horseshit in an attempt to avoid accountability for the bullshit he has already released in conversation. — Cabbage Farmer

Sounds reasonable to me, CF. In fact, I might even borrow that quote after checking it out independently.

But this all refers back to something you said earlier: "Some people provide extensive arguments for their theistic or atheistic claims and beliefs. I'm not inclined to call that "guessing".

Okay...I appreciate that you are not inclined to call that "guessing."

I, however, DO...in spades and in capital letters.

And I am inclined, at times, to calling it bullshit.

(After reading your post, I acknowledge I may have to revise that last part.)

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. — SonOfAGun

If facts are not believed to be true are they still facts? Seems to me facts require belief in order to be facts. Facts can obviously be not believed in (i.e. flat Earth society), do doesn’t that mean they at least can be believed in too?

If facts are not believed to be true are they still facts? Seems to me facts require belief in order to be facts. Facts can obviously be not believed in (i.e. flat Earth society), do doesn’t that mean they at least can be believed in too? — Pinprick

Facts do not REQUIRE belief. They can be practically applied in reality. But yes you are correct one can believe facts. There is nothing stopping anybody from doing that.

Let me put it another way then. None of these things you have listed here require Belief. Their existence is fact. They are objectively real. They are practically demonstrable. Yes you can believe in these things, but in our current highly technological environment, I don't know why you would need to. I have personally confirmed the existence of every item you have on your list there, including personally operated telescopes to confirm planets and stars, as well as, personally being able to comprehend the physics involved with telescopes. — SonOfAGun

Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? It seems to me these are paradigm cases of belief, and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates.

How could we perform ordinary actions if we did not have ordinary beliefs about ordinary matters of fact?

How will I get from here to the grocery, if I do not believe I know the route, and if I do not expect the grocery is in the same place it was last time I went shopping?

How will I answer a child who asks, "What color is the sky", if I don't believe the sky is blue?

Why do I change my clothes before heading outside, if I don't believe it's raining?

The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases.

Again, we will try another approach. While you are technically correct, and can believe in everything you have listed there, this is not how the human brain works. If the human brain were forced to consider all of these things every time it looked at a table, or anything else for that mater, it would quickly overload and become nonfunctional. It would not be the proper tool we require to navigate the universe. — SonOfAGun

Human beings cannot, do not, and do not "need" to consider every possible conception of things that don't exist. But on some occasions it turns out to be, or at least initially to seem, useful to consider one or more specific conceptions of things that don't exist. Most often, to claim or to suggest that a prior claim -- one's own or someone else's -- that some conceivable thing exists was false.

Once such a conception is considered, and the proposition that some such thing exists is considered, we may affirm or deny the proposition. And if we affirm or deny sincerely, our belief follows the affirmation or the denial.

This is not a miraculous feat. It's no big deal. I'm not sure what you're objecting to. It seems to me you're not acquainted with ordinary use of the term "belief" in the discourses of epistemologists and in ordinary conversations.

In that case: What is it, on your account, that we do in fact believe? What kinds of things are the things our beliefs are actually about, according to your unusual custom of speaking about beliefs?

Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? It seems to me these are paradigm cases of belief, and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

Sorry will respond later. Right now I'm doing 180 Proof. I'm taking my time to, doing other things also, so may be a while.

This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.

Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:

I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.

But that is absolutely the truth.

I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.

There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.

But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.

It is not.

This conversation you are having with several people stems from the corruption of that word "believe" that I have talked about.

Some of these people think it would be absurd for me to say:

I know I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard...and I do not "believe" I am sitting at my desk typing on my keyboard.

But that is absolutely the truth.

I KNOW I am here...sitting at my desk...typing on my keyboard.

There is NO "believing" involved in the essence of that statement...which is merely to identify the fact that I (Frank) am sitting on a chair pulled up to the well of a desk in my den typing a response to an Internet forum.

But the use of the word "believe" has gotten so corrupted...the people you are debating think it must be used to identify that situation. They see that bolded comment above to be a contradiction of some sort.

It is not. — Frank Apisa

Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. You seem to be saying that belief isn’t required for knowledge. How then would you define knowledge?

How then would you define knowledge? — Pinprick

Facts.

Definition of knowledge
1a(1): the fact or condition of knowing something with familiarity gained through experience or association
(2): acquaintance with or understanding of a science, art, or technique
b(1): the fact or condition of being aware of something
(2): the range of one's information or understanding
answered to the best of my knowledge

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/knowledge

knowledge ​‌‌‌
​NOUN
US

/ˈnɑlɪdʒ/
DEFINITIONS2
1
SINGULAR/UNCOUNTABLE all the facts that someone knows about a particular subject
The teacher’s comments are designed to help improve your knowledge and understanding.
knowledge of/about: Lawyers should possess detailed knowledge of certain aspects of the law.
Candidates for the job must have a working knowledge of at least one European language.


https://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/american/knowledge

Scroll up or flip back to previous pages and read my "evidence". — 180 Proof

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. — 180 Proof

Found it!

Sorry that took so long. Unexpected IRL distractions.

"God" is a malleable philosophical argument. The things that are ascribed to any entity labeled "god" by any theistic religion are not the end all be all of what can be ascribed to the characteristics of god. Philosophy is in a constant state of flux with new advances being made here and there and many particular arguments rising to or falling from prominence. Take metaphysics for example: many recent advancements in the science branch of philosophy have lent new prominence to many ideas that metaphysics deals with. So a change in science precipitates a rise to prominence for metaphysics.

Theists do not have a monopoly on "what is god." the argument can be simplified to "any entity with omniscience and omnipresence" the "physical being nature" and "intervention nature" that is ascribed to god by the Abrahamic religions is not required. An example of a god that is only omniscient and omnipresent can be found in the ideas of "universal consciousness/universal mind" - and this does indeed meet the criteria of a god. On the other hand, another prominent argument these days is that the universe is a simulation. Now, I did recently read arguments on this forum (don't know if they were from you or not) that a simulation/programmer do not meet the qualifications of a god due to a proposed universal substrate. But this is not necessarily true. The physical properties of reality prime may be entirely different. And then there is the deistic god who does not intervene. And and then there is spinoza's god.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm still looking for other "proofs" I'll let you know If I find any.

Also the main body or your argument is fallacious. Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

I'm still looking for other "proofs" I'll let you know If I find any. — SonOfAGun

You won't.

There are none...although that will not stop some people from insisting there are.

Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. — SonOfAGun

True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son.

As 180proof mentioned, If atheism is identified with the absence of belief, then it avoids the 'truth-by-correspondence' problem concerning beliefs that have non-existent referents. However, this is arguably not the case for theism, that your argument can be turned around to defend, by the following argument:

Premise 1 : All beliefs have referents.
Premise 2: Theism is a belief.

Conclusion: The referent of Theism exists, and therefore theism is true.

Personally, I find this argument acceptable, because the idea that a non-existent object can cause belief-behaviour is scientifically unacceptable, leading me to the conclusion that all beliefs are vacuously true in the epistemological sense of truth-by-correspondence of language to something. Hence any substantial notion of truth cannot be in terms of "truth by correspondence" of language to reality, but in terms of ethics and cultural convention.

A mistake of atheists is to assume that the object of theistic beliefs is universal, for there are many potential physical causes of religious behaviour and speech.

180 Proof
836
Argumentum ad ignorantiam, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.
— SonOfAGun
True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son. — 180 Proof

TRUE...period. Unless you are an atheist who wants to pretend possession of a proof that simply does not exist.

True - in the abstract. But that's not my argument. If you're genuinely interested - not just in trolling (like Frankie) or scoring points against strawmen, keep looking, Son. — 180 Proof

I am finished looking 180 Proof. I didn't find anything else that I thought was worth responding to. I am not trying to be mean here, score points, or trolling. I am always genuine.

If you have any arguments that you think I should consider closer/further please quote them here, and I will be happy to consider them and give my critique. Or make an argument, that is fine too.

Or perhaps this?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge

You don’t believe you are Frank? Then who do you believe you are?

Knowledge is defined as justified true belief. — Pinprick

You are working with an old definition of knowledge. Currently there is only one universally acknowledged method for the acquisition and categorization of knowledge - objectively recognized to be a producer of truth/knowledge - and that is science (this includes the math this used to conduct science and the philosophy that trickles down to become science. You might argue that not every person in the world believes in science, but this is irrelevant because they all in some form or another at least tacitly or indirectly benefit from or accept the benifits of scientific knowledge. There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value.

It is an old definition, but I was under the impression that it was the accepted definition throughout epistemology and philosophy through consensus. Perhaps I’m wrong?

Regarding

There are different types of knowledge, but only science produces anything of tangible/measurable/actual value. — SonOfAGun

I would state that knowledge of things like your emotions, desires, needs, etc. have actual value and aren’t known through science. Knowing those things are valuable to me. Unless I misunderstand what you mean by value.

Why do you say that we do not "believe" matters of fact? — Cabbage Farmer

I did not say that. I said that facts do not require belief: they can be practically applied.

and paradigm cases of how epistemologists and ordinary speakers use the word "belief" and its cognates. — Cabbage Farmer

I don't think that the epistemological field is as unified as you claim. What about epistemologists who are scientific realists? Perhaps they are not the majority, but exist non-the-less.

How could we perform ordinary actions if we did not have ordinary beliefs about ordinary matters of fact? — Cabbage Farmer

Again facts can be practically applied with invariable results. They do not require belief.

How will I get from here to the grocery, if I do not believe I know the route, and if I do not expect the grocery is in the same place it was last time I went shopping? — Cabbage Farmer

Since you know the route belief is not required.

How will I answer a child who asks, "What color is the sky", if I don't believe the sky is blue? — Cabbage Farmer

The color of the sky is explainable via basic physics facts.

The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases. — Cabbage Farmer

The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the deceleration

Oops. accidentally pushed the post button will continue in next post.

Pinprick
57
↪Frank Apisa

Or perhaps this?

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/knowledge — Pinprick

If someone wants to think that "knowledge" is "belief"...fine with me. If they want to think it is a cheese sandwich...that is also okay with me.

I'll stick with facts.

You don’t believe you are Frank?

Correct. I KNOW I am Frank.

Then who do you believe you are?

I KNOW WHO I AM.

^^^ Editors not at bottem^^^

Sorry got distracted again.

The fact that I don't need to engage in sophisticated discourses and investigations in order to persuade myself that these beliefs are true is no reason to claim that I don't believe them. To the contrary, the fact that I am already persuaded shows the firmness of my belief in such cases. — Cabbage Farmer

The fact that you are already persuaded demonstrates the power of the decimation of facts throughout the population you are a member of via science. It is a testament to the shear amount of verifiable truth produced by science. And here is the kicker: If you believe that something in science is not true, you can go and verify it yourself because all accepted science is practical/verifiable.

Human beings cannot, do not, and do not "need" to consider every possible conception of things that don't exist. But on some occasions it turns out to be, or at least initially to seem, useful to consider one or more specific conceptions of things that don't exist. Most often, to claim or to suggest that a prior claim -- one's own or someone else's -- that some conceivable thing exists was false. — Cabbage Farmer

My comments were directed at the absurdity of your initial question "do you believe that these count as beliefs." I do not, because the claims to belief that you asserted, are in fact observations of demonstrable facts. You can believe these things but, the human brain works as it does precisely to avoid having to deal with such interference.

The assertions you were responding to are of a different caliber entirely. People actually believe/disbelieve in god. and have real world reasons for doing so.

The type of reasoning that you are talking about is called counterfactual reasoning, but that is not what you are doing because your alternatives are not grounded in the reality of the subject.

I would state that knowledge of things like your emotions, desires, needs, etc. have actual value and aren’t known through science. — Pinprick

A good deal is known through science, and more is being discovered all the time. Given an effectively infinite amount of time to study these subjects, do you think that they will remain a mystery forever?