Nobeernolife
314
Nothing whatever wrong with my reading comprehension.
— Frank Apisa

OK, boomer... — Nobeernolife

I'm 83. Hardly a boomer.

What is interesting here, is my point about taking either position, "believer" kind and caring and "non believer" aggressive, is sort of being proved. I didn't imagine the "non believers" would attack each other??! Are they not on the same side? Maybe the "non believer" is just destructive to everything it comes across?

True, same as the rest of us. — Anti

We agree...so far.

Already, in a slightly clever way making a presumption that "creator exists" — Anti

Not even close. There is absolutely no presumption that a "creator exists" in what I wrote.

Why are you trying to distort my comments?

Sort of true as the statement is a little woolly. — Anti

Not woolly at all. And not "sort of true." It is absolutely true. I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...that gods are needed to explain existence.

True.

So it's statement 2 that "suggests" you do, or might do. — Anti

Not sure what you are trying to contort here...or why you think it necessary to contort. I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...and I most assuredly don't.

Opps, done it again. Now you assumed there isn't. So an assertion, so in error. Remember, the truth is "don't know". :) — Anti

Ahhh...you are playing a game.

Okay.

I'm 83. Hardly a boomer. — Frank Apisa

Ah, OK. Sorry, did not want to make fun of Alzheimer. Pls forgive.

It's fair to say that any man of reason will suspend judgement as long as he finds out if something is or isn't true. That's established. Also, "I don't know" also is established. We can also carefully ignore believers, non-believers and people with faith at least in the attempt of proving/ disproving God's existance because, believing something because it is useful and not because it is true poses a threat to our intellectual integrity.

Now, taking the tree example, yes the tree grows from a seed to a fully grown tree, aided by certain external elements. That's all we know. Now, modern science can prove with evidence how and why it occurs. So, do we really need to establish a creator when we can break down the whole process with microscopic precision?

No problemo. I always cut jerkoffs a big break.

Ahhh...you are playing a game. — Frank Apisa

I'm just trying to say, as clearly and concisely as I can, we agree the answer is "not known". If we reason further and say anything more, we are assuming, whether its "does" "doesnt" matters not because we already established "dont know". Not "doesnt". :)

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST — Frank Apisa

Its the MUST bit I see as wooly. We were only concerned with "does" or "doesn't". Otherwise we are sort of dropping inbetween "does" or "doesnt" and therefore losing the straight clarity we were trying to maintain. The answer we keep returning to is, "don't know". Neither "believer", neither "non believer".

Also, "I don't know" also is established. We can also carefully ignore believers, non-believers and people with faith at least in the attempt of proving/ disproving God's existence because, believing something because it is useful and not because it is true poses a threat to our intellectual integrity. — Zeus

Correct, "don't know" is established, so let's call that "Fact". Because the fact is neutral.
Believers / Non believers are in possession of no greater fact than that we have already established.
Those of faith are in the "believer" camp. We only have two groups here.
Any further move beyond the "fact" will be a transgression. Or we could call is a "persuasive argurement" or just error. We are being "convinced" one way or the other. Of course, each camp will say, "join us". But as scientists, we already have the fact that if we choose one group, we exclude the other in which case we might be in the wrong group because the fact said, "don't know or not known"

modern science can prove with evidence how and why — Zeus

Careful, we are in danger of transgression again. Science can prove "why" it grows. Seed, soil, water, sun mix it together, tree. Science cannot however prove, "how" it grows. Or if it can, then we may be able to change the "fact" for a new fact, depending on what science proves the "how" to be.

do we really need to establish a creator when we can break down the whole process with microscopic precision — Zeus

Grab your microscope, let's go looking, we might be able to prove it one way or the other :) Our experiment only got us as far as proving "creator DOESNT exist" wasn't true. Equally, is proved "creator exists" was true either. So we didn't find the creator, but we did prove that "creator DOESNT exist" couldn't be true. Because there was a place where the "creator" could have existed. The fact it produced was "not known".

I'm just trying to say, as clearly and concisely as I can, we agree the answer is "not known". If we reason further and say anything more, we are assuming, whether its "does" "doesnt" matters not because we already established "dont know". Not "doesnt". :) — Anti

We agree that we do not know.

This "assuming" stuff that you are injecting is off-the-wall as far as I am concerned.

My take as proposed is right on the button...and the "assumptions" you presume...are contrived. I repeat:

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 gods are 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.

A small digression here, for fun. I remember being told by my tutor when studying hypnosis, "Who do you imagine is harder to hypnotise, clever people or not so clever people?" Quick as a flash, I said, not so clever people of course. The tutor said, "Wrong. Clever people are easier to hypnotise because they are looking for it. All the time they look for it, they miss the actual suggestion being offered." That stuck with me because it eluded to that fact that, well, clever people can't be that clever then ultimately.

Oh, and there is no hypnosis involved here, and I never finished the course.

...so I don't. — Frank Apisa

Come on Frank, really. You not seeing this? Why you making me hit you with this all the time, I feel bad :(

Its the MUST bit I see as wooly. We were only concerned with "does" or "doesn't". Otherwise we are sort of dropping inbetween "does" or "doesnt" and therefore losing the straight clarity we were trying to maintain. The answer we keep returning to is, "don't know". Neither "believer", neither "non believer". — Anti

The "must" is essential to what I am saying there.

Read it again...without allowing any confirmation bias conflict. You should be able to see wyhy.

Antidote
94
...so I don't.
— Frank Apisa

Come on Frank, really. You not seeing this? Why you making me hit you with this all the time, I feel bad — Antidote

Stop playing this game!

I do not make a guess in either direction.

Nobody should.

Now just stop the bullshit.

The "must" is essential — Frank Apisa

Is "must" affirmative or subjective? If I say to someone, "you can do this if you like", or say, "you must do this". Is it affirmative? The reason it is essential is because as soon as you remove it the "deck of cards" falls down.

Is "must" affirmative or subjective? If I say to someone, "you can do this if you like", or say, "you must do this". Is it affirmative? The reason it is essential is because as soon as you remove it the "deck of cards" falls down. — Anti

You are either playing a game...or are not particularly bright.

I cannot figure out which it is...so I am trying to figure out how best to proceed without being sure.

Talk to someone else for a while...and I'll give it a bit more thought.

Stop playing this game! — Frank Apisa

We didn't play a game, although I was trying to lighten it up a bit as I felt bad, I will be more serious, sorry.

You read the example, you saw there was no guessing involved. We moved carefully, one step at a time from one point to the other and concluded that fact was "don't know". This is not, maybe could be, must, probably, or any other affirmative word, it was "don't know" or "not known" what ever word you want to use that clearly states, "Neither is true". We were looking at the ground that an atheist stands on "creator DOESNT exist" and proved this wasn't true. We looked at the ground a believer stands on too, "creator does exist" and proved this wasn't true either. However, in terms of did we find anywhere that a creator "could" exist, we said yes, in growth. Because we don't know "how" growth works, a "creator" could be in there. Not that there is, but this ground proves that "doesn't exist" had no ground to stand on, and therefore could not be proved.

That's as far as we got. Until someone can tell us "how" growth occurs, we cannot move further than this. And to be clear, not "why" it occurs, we established that... seed, soil, sun, water, time, tree.

or are not particularly bright. — Frank Apisa

I'm not bright at all. I'm as dumb as a lump of wood. Or as some people call it, receptive.

I stand by my comments regarding my take.

If you are unable to comprehend it...your problem, not mine.

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 gods are 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.

Piece by piece:

"I do not know if gods exist or not"

We seem to agree on that.


I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...or that they MUST EXIST.

Obviously if I did...IF is saw a reason to suspect the CANNOT EXIST...or that the MUST exist...

...that first bit about "I do not know" would be absurd.

If they CANNOT EXIST...they would NOT exist.

If they MUST EXIST...they would exist.




I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

What is there about that statement that you cannot or will not understand?

It is clear cut.

Okay, so let's imagine something else for a moment. Let's say we want to drive a car to London. Now, we agree London is the place to get to, we draw a precise map detailing the roads, and know precisely how to get there, etc. Then we start the journey. We drive along, drive to London and then keep driving all the way to East Anglia and stop. Yes we drove to London, but we went through it, and London is not where we ended up. We ended up in East Anglia.

If you hold to the "fact" that we have established already, "not known" and no further, you cannot be an atheist without it being an assumption, that is, not a fact. I apologise because I thought you saw that earlier which is why I was being playful.

The same objection stands, it's your last statement, "...so I don't. As in you don't believe creator exists". We established that "creator doesn't exist" wasn't true, or it was false. So your last statement makes you false, wrong. Whatever you want to call it. Forget the wording and your argument, because it is a work of fiction. We proved it time and time again.

The same objection stands, it's your last statement, "...so I don't. As in you don't believe creator exists". We established that "creator doesn't exist" wasn't true, or it was false. So your last statement makes you false, wrong. Whatever you want to call it. Forget the wording and your argument, because it is a work of fiction. We proved it time and time again.

Anti...read what I actually wrote.

The "I don't" applies to the "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction"...not to anything else.

Since you seem unable to follow the continuity of the thought, I'll write it out as a continuous statement using shorter words:

Since I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether at least one god exists...or if no gods exist...

...I do not make a guess either way.

Please, please tell me that you understand that not particularly complex thought,

By the way...if you insist that I ought to make a guess...

...I am willing to do so. Tell me you want me to do so, and I will flip the coin honestly and report it exactly as it resolves. Heads, I guess there is at least one god; tails, I guess there are no gods.

The statement now appears to be mostly correct because no conclusion was drawn, a god, many gods is irrelevant. All of it in bold is correct, is it not? Lets not guess, or you will undo the good work. Rather, I insist you don't make a guess, as the thread has shown, if we do make a guess we will be outside of the fact. You told me the problem of guessing, did you not?

So having been scientific about this, we can now draw a conclusion. Having tested both ways for the existence of creator, both answers were false meaning, we are no clearer now then when we were when we started. But that's not completely true, because what we have proved is:

Those people who believe in a creator do so by faith.
Those people who dont believe in a creator do so by faith.

I will define faith here for clarity. Faith is what you have when you don't have the fact, and therefore choose to make a choice either way. Your faith says, no creator. My faith says, a creator.

Now as highlighted before, what are the consequences of both our faiths? My faith attempts to make me kind, and caring towards others. I show people love even if they are horrible to me. I try to put the needs of other before me. I do not think I'm God, because i believe in a creator. I attempt to be humble because that is a quality that my faith requires.

We have already seen the virtues of your faith, as I pointed out earlier.

So the choice is yours, we have both choosen our faiths, and i guess we are both happy with them.

Those people who believe in a creator do so by faith.
Those people who dont believe in a creator do so by faith. — Antidote

Gotta be careful of your wording, Anti.

I disagree with your second sentence...simply because of its wording.

I suspect you actually meant: Those people who "believe" there is no creator do so by faith. (Not the same thing as what you wrote.)

In any case, if you think I "have faith" that there is no creator...you are wrong.

I do not know if there is a creator...and I am not willing to guess that there is...just as I am not willing to guess that there isn't.

I'm willing to stick with "I do not know."

As far as kindness and caring is concerned, I see as much kindness and caring among agnostics and atheists...as I do in so-called religious people; AND I see as much hatred, anger, cruelty, and lack of concern in people devoted to a creator...as I do in agnostics and atheists. In fact, on that latter issue...I personally see more hatred, anger, cruelty, and lack of concern in so-called religious people than in agnostics and atheists.

Yes for sure, we need to be very careful or will will jump to conclusions. Okay, so we have taken a backward step again, or i misunderstand you because it sounds like we are splitting hairs. Or prehaps you are not an athiest? The only difference in my two statements is the word, "dont"

Did the scientist in the example prove there was no creator?
Did the example leave enough doubt or room for a creator to exist in potential?
Do you consider yourself an athiest (no creator)? If not, then your are not an athiest.

I say this because where we got stuck in a bit of a loop was in the transgression you made when you said, "... so i dont". Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this?

Antidote
100
Yes for sure, we need to be very careful or will will jump to conclusions. Okay, so we have taken a backward step again, or i misunderstand you because it sounds like we are splitting hairs. Or prehaps you are not an athiest? — Antidote

Not only am I not an atheist...I would not be an atheist if you held a gun to my head.

I am an agnostic.

Read that statement of my agnosticism again. I've posted it three times already.

The only difference in my two statements is the word, "dont" — Anti

That is not even close to the only difference.

The difference between "people who don't believe in a creator" and "people who believe there is not creator"...is a chasm as wide as the Grand Canyon. In another forum right now, I have an ongoing argument with several atheists on just this topic.

We can discuss the considerable difference at length if you choose...but you should be able to see it.

Did the scientist in the example prove there was no creator?
Did the example leave enough doubt or room for a creator to exist in potential?
Do you consider yourself an athiest (no creator)? If not, then your are not an athiest. — Anti

No, Yes...and You goddam right I am not an atheist. How you have missed that point this far into our discussion is beyond me, Anti. Go back and read a few of my posts. Nothing points to atheism at all.

I say this because where we got stuck in a bit of a loop was in the transgression you made when you said, "... so i dont". Perhaps you could explain what you meant by this? — Anti

"I don't" refers to "I don't make a guess that a god exists...and I don't make a guess that no gods exist."

Anti, you are just not reading what I am writing...not paying attention.

I just explained that in the post up above...the one with the bolded text that you mentioned.

Here it is again:


The "I don't" applies to the "I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction"...not to anything else.

Since you seem unable to follow the continuity of the thought, I'll write it out as a continuous statement using shorter words:

Since I do not see any unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess as to whether at least one god exists...or if no gods exist...

...I do not make a guess either way.

Okay, that's an interesting one, if you are an agnostic, when we arrived at the "fact" which showed it was "not known", why didn't you agree? Surely that is the view of the agnostic, in which case the "fact" shown was the one you support? I'm confused by this. You have argued like an atheist, and then proclaimed agnosticism ?

Perhaps if you are an agnostic then why disagree when the "fact" was in line with such. In effect, in a conversation of "creator exists" or "creator doesn't exist" - you don't have an opinion, do you? Or if you do, then you are playing which ever side suits you in the moment, therefore able to move between the sides as you see fit, but support neither?

Remember, I'm not very clever, so I need this to be clearer to me so I understand. If the "believer" is supported or grounded by "a creator" and a "non-believer" is supported or grounded by "no creator", which in many cases they assume creator position, then where does the "agnostic" stand?

If your agnosticism were a ballot paper, which box would you tick? Non of them? Or is the agnostic actually the antithesis of Christ?

Okay, that's an interesting one, if you are an agnostic, when we arrived at the "fact" which showed it was "not known", why didn't you agree? — Antidote

I don't know if you are just fucking with me or what...but it stops right here. I have said in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT KNOW if gods exist or not.

What the hell are you up to here?

Go back and read my posts.

Point out to me anywhere where I disagreed with anything about that.

Jesus H. Christ, man...get your act together.

I have said in no uncertain terms that I DO NOT KNOW if gods exist or not. — Frank Apisa

Happy to leave it there, I'm not sure how we progress from here other than for me to get a better understanding from you on what your agnosticism is? But it sort of doesn't matter, because the entire thread was for atheists, and you're not an atheist !?!

I'm really sorry if this has caused you grief, I think there has been a misunderstanding on my part as I read your messages as though you were an atheist, in line with the first comment of the "thread creator". I've no idea about agnosticism. I did say I was dumb as a lump of wood !

There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist. There is NO WAY to establish with any certainty that IT IS MORE LIKELY one way or the other. — Frank Apisa

I don't see where your enthusiastic commitment to no possibility of knowledge comes from. What makes you to be so sure of no possibility of certainty? I am curious, more than I am challenging. Is there a foolproof proof that proves that?

I don't see where your enthusiastic commitment to no possibility of knowledge comes from. What makes you to be so sure of no possibility of certainty? I am curious, more than I am challenging. Is there a foolproof proof that proves that? — god must be atheist

Great question.

No, there is no certainty...and I almost always use some tiny qualifier.

Obviously to prove there are no gods...one would have to be everywhere in the universe all at the same time....and detect no gods in order to prove there are none. But to do that...would be proving there is one...the being everywhere in the universe at the same time.

To prove there IS AT LEAST ONE GOD...would require the participation of the god. I am sure a god could provide evidence that it exists.

If it is selective, though (some religious people claim a personal revelation)...the person would have to prove he/she is not delusional.

Good luck doing that.

If it is selective, though (some religious people claim a personal revelation)...the person would have to prove he/she is not delusional. — Frank Apisa

here is another proof that you require for the proof of the first thing, and you yourself admit that this proof is also suspect even when it's complete.

I am lost. You insist we don't know if there is a god or not; I agree. You insist the existence of god can't be known either way; and you capitulated on that, without saying anything, but showing proofs that would prove the existence either way, and then you proceeded to debunk those proofs.

So... if you don't know that god exists or not, and you don't know if it can be known, why do you say you don't have faith in either existence or non-existence of gods? Are you saying that nobody else logically ought to have faith either, either way? Nobody on Earth is claiming knowledge of the existence of god. It's all beliefs. You seem to be the sole and only one, who denies that beliefs are acceptable.