I'm willing to be corrected here, but my understanding of his posts was that he had concluded that a particular answer to the question has no value. — Hippyhead

That is pretty much the opposite of my position. Obviously I have not communicated. It is the sentence/question itself that is incoherent.

I'll elaborate - maybe this will help - or maybe it will muddy the waters further :smile:

In the English language - and I assume all languages - it is possible to construct sentences that are grammatically correct but have no meaning.

"Quadruplicity drinks procrastination." "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

We all recognize that under the standard definitions of the words these are nonsense sentences - they do not express a coherent thought.

The question then arises - can we assign a truth value to such sentences? I'm a plain language person and am not as articulate or knowledgeable about these things as many folks on this forum - but to my limited knowledge there are two schools of thought on this question.

One school of thought basically says - and using a Star Trek reference - "Dammit, Jim! Quadruplicity does not drink procrastination!" :smile: I.e., all nonsense sentences are false.

The other school of thought says you cannot assign a truth value to incoherent sentences.

I'm with that second school - and - to my way of thinking, any sentence in the form "God(s) [do not] exists" is incoherent.

- - - - - - - - -
Before proceeding further I want to make my definitions/usages of words clear.
Exists
When I use the word "exists" I mean physical existence. As someone who tries to follow the discussions on this forum, I am aware that this definition potentially opens up a philosophical can of worms and is subject to endless debate. But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc
Truth
When I use the word truth I am using it in the same sense as in a court of law. When you swear to "tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" you are saying that the words that will come out of your mouth will form sentences that will describe events in the physical world - or at least as accurately as you are capable of.
- - - - - - - - - - -

With those definitions in mind - when I use the word "God" - I am referring to a fictional character (or characters) that appear in various works of mythology. Most typically I am referring to the fictional character that appears in the Old & New Testaments.

So the sentence "God exists" is equivalent to the sentence"Harry Potter exists". Both are characters in works of fiction - and these characters have supernatural powers. God just happens to be a lot more powerful than Harry Potter.

So is the sentence "Harry Potter exists" coherent? Can we assign a truth value value to this sentence? I say no. The question is a nonsense sentence.

Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs?

Those are indications of words on a page in a book. Belief is irrelevant to the topic, I don't understand what you think belief has to do with it.

That is pretty much the opposite of my position — EricH

Um, in your reply you demonstrated that my understanding of your position was correct. You clearly believe that a god does not exist, thus you believe the question "does God exist" to be a valid question.

You argument is with a particular answer to the question, not with the question itself.

If you found the question itself to be invalid, then you would have no preferred answer to that question. As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?

But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc — EricH

Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?

Is it not POSSIBLE that there exists things that humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way?

And can you appreciate the impact of the answer to that question on your arguments?

Before I respond I need to understand. Are you a religious person and are these your religious beliefs? — EricH

Those are indications of words on a page in a book. Belief is irrelevant to the topic, I don't understand what you think belief has to do with it. — whollyrolling

Agreed. I don't know why Eric needs to know whether you are a religious person or not. It indeed seems irrelevant. They are words in a history book.

The 'belief' component relates to whether one should believe in the history book's account of history, or disbelieve it. In the case of the Christianity, of course, early church politics; translation errors, lost gospels, excluded books (Spinoza's and Gnostic teachings), different religions excluding books (Sirach is omitted from the Baptist Bible) ad nauseum (not to mention allegory/ metaphor), simply means the book is fallible. Aren't many history books subject to fallibility?

And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. Doesn't seem too intuitive or sophisticated does it... . Extremist Fundy's/Atheists indeed share a great sense of ignorance.

The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc — EricH

The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe.

And so in this context, the poor atheist decides to arbitrarily dichotomize same, by throwing out the baby with the bath water. — 3017amen

I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love.

I've been struck by how, on philosophy forums at least, both theists and atheists typically throw the baby out with the bath water when it comes to discussion of Christianity. As example, it's nearly impossible to find any serious discussion of love. — Hippyhead

Excellent point about love. In Christianity, Jesus was basically a pacifist and was mostly about spreading love. And what is love but yet another mystery anyhow. How can the atheist deny mystery. They cannot even explain love itself, but somehow can explain no-God. Again, not very intuitive, sophisticated and frankly, very ignorant.

But back to the Fundy/Atheist similarities. I'll just summarize by saying living life is not A or B; it's both A and B. Consciousness is both consciousness and subconsciousness working together (Freud would add in the unconscious). In fact, the poor atheist cannot even explain consciousness...for shame for shame sargent.

Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY? — Frank Apisa

Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it -

humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...
...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way? — Frank Apisa

That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.

Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component.

Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does.

EricH
185
↪Frank Apisa
Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?
— Frank Apisa

Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it - — EricH

If you have answered that question multiple times, Eric, you've not done a very good job of it.

In any case, if you have answered it "in the affirmative" then you agree that if there are things that are "supernatural"...they are merely things that we humans do not understand...that we cannot perceive.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

You agree we humans do not know everything about REALITY...and we certainly may not be able to understand or identify everything...

...so if there are gods, there are gods whether we humans can "understand" them or not.

Why are you not seeing that.

That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.

Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component. — EricH

I resent you supposing I am outside "the rest of humanity."

And the preponderance of humans who have existed on this planet have NOT supposed that gods have some "supernatural" component...although even if they did, what we would be saying is that gods have some components that WE HUMANS DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

Big deal. The cosmos has that as part of its being...and we do not deny the existence of the cosmos.

Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does. — EricH

Once again you want to define me as being uniquely outside of "the rest of humanity."

WTF?

Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:

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. — Frank Apisa

And here is your latest definition.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature." — Frank Apisa

EricH
186
↪Frank Apisa
Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:

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.
— Frank Apisa

And here is your latest definition.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or e — EricH

Eric...not sure of what kind of game you are playing here...or why you are playing it. I see no contradictions in what I have said...here or in any other of my thousands of posts on this issue in several different fora devoted to the question of the OP.

Space is not empty.

I am trying to respond to your questions as truthfully & accurately as possible within the limits of my capabilities - and it will help me to understand the context of your questions.

My guess is that you are Christian and believe in the Bible, but I want to make sure. If you are an atheist/agnostic I would respond very differently.

As example, I assume you have no preferred answer to the question, does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB? — Hippyhead

Your assumption is incorrect. "does ARGDb8 have DTEDSB?" is not a question - it is a meaningless jumble of undefined words.

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.

I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.

And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.

"I do not know" makes lots of sense.

"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.

At least, as I see it. — Frank Apisa

Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".

Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense.

The universe as we know it is actually comprised overwhelmingly of space, that which is typically labeled as non-existence. Your statement is referring to the tiniest fraction of the universe. — Hippyhead

Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. Other spacetime philosophy perspectives such as relationism or super-substantivalism split ways with this but while one is emergent from another spacetime still would exist in some manner. In other words even a modern day physicalist would or could add spacetime to their ontology without issue though its truer ontological virtue is rather unclear.

One should first understand what history is, to understand hat history books are, and then one may approach their contents. In any case, the Christian Bible is no history book, nor does any but the fond think it is. — tim wood

Why do you indulge him when he seems to intentionally ignore that an anecdotal (perhaps second to even third hand or more) stories relaying true facts about the world (Jerusalem, pontius pilot, etc) can still obviously have them interspersed with rather elaborate special natural phenomenon (miracles) that have never been suspected to occur nor have ever occurred again. That the dubious metaphysical claims about the real world made in the text is what were confounded by just flies right over his head?

Well actually its rather popular for physicists now to elaborate on spacetime being a substance in its own right perhaps dualistically coexistent with the fields/matter within it. — substantivalism

Yes, I hear you. Here's an accessible documentary which goes in to considerable detail on the subject.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rKPv8zApee0&t=58s

I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect.

What I suspect is happening is that we're trying to map a simplistic "exists or not" paradigm which is perfectly reasonable at human scale on to the very largest of scales, and doing so rather blindly.

Another obstacle is that commentators on the god question are typically so laser focused on promoting their preferred answer that they typically have little time or energy left over for inspecting the question they are attempting to address.

Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".

Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense. — substantivalism

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

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.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.

Here is my agnosticism [ ... ] — Frank Apisa

Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?

180 Proof
1.6k
Here is my agnosticism [ ... ]
— Frank Apisa
Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism? — 180 Proof

The problem with descriptors is that one almost always has to define what one means when using the descriptor.

I occasionally use the descriptor "agnostic."

When I do, what I mean 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.

If you don't understand that...perhaps this is not the thread for you.

Why do you indulge him — substantivalism

If the ignorant and stupid (speaking charitably) were simply inert, then I should be pleased to leave it untouched, or as able, to educate; the stone unturned, and no call to turn it. But it isn't, and I evolve to an understanding, no doubt whetted by current events, that to call out and confront lies and ignorance and stupidity is at the least a sometime duty for us all. Without being confronted or challenged in some way, the malice of it multiplies. The malice manifest in the refusal to substantively engage.

There is a pretty good movie with an outstanding piece of cinematography in it, "The King's Choice." This scene here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YZ79i11JSnU
A bit of history told with much accuracy and little license.

There is in it a line I think matters. "No warning, no hesitation - these are enemies." The sense of this should be taught early and often.

And on Youtube somewhere there's a clip of Trump at a Dutch press conference. He tells some piece of nonsense, and the Dutch reporters won't let it go. He dismisses one, and the next takes up the question. Of course the Dutch, and many other Europeans, have experience with malice.

I'm content referring to space as "relative nothing". My point is only that space does not seem to fit neatly in to either the "exists" or "doesn't exist" category. This doesn't automatically prove anything about gods, but given what an overwhelmingly dominant part of reality space is, it seems to at least merit some careful inspection. You know, the simplistic dualistic nature of the god question doesn't seem to line up with reality very well, and is thus reasonably suspect. — Hippyhead

No, it exists and I'm not exactly sure why you think it's a relative nothing. It contains inherent geometrical properties and perhaps is even affected by the relations of matter or the energy/momentum content within it. Nothingness is the absence of any properties. Either it exists distinctly from matter or it's an emergent property of matter that arises from it. In either case it isn't nothing.

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

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.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion. — Frank Apisa

Most philosophers? Either they didn't know of such a position or they actively were involved, or loosely, in the god discussion so then they acknowledged they knew what they were talking about. At that point they were not ignostics anymore but agnostic, atheist, theist, gnostic atheist, gnostic theist, agnostic atheist, agnostic theists, defacto atheists, etc. It's all word games until you let the other person talk. But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't?

If god is a meaningless term then so is the question, does god exist? God isn't meaningless? Then we can actually discuss its veracity/probable likelihood to exist, contains a contradiction so therefore cannot, or is deistic so we literally could never know it exists. Or we substituted the word god for other terms (god is all of existence) so we didn't actually disagree at all but had a non-discussion.

We cannot discuss whether something exists or not...if you have no idea about what your saying is that doesn't/does exist. Once you define your terms and it's no longer language games then were both make the transition from ignostic to any of the usual positions taken.

I am not playing any games. I have been trying to understand your positions, to attempt to put them in my own words, and to explain where our differences lie.

It is obvious that I have failed spectacularly in that attempt. I apologize if I have given offense - none was ever intended.

:clap: :ok:
I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. :grin:

I will gladly pass the ignostic baton over to you in this discussion. — EricH

Why thank you.

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

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.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.
— Frank Apisa

Most philosophers? — substantivalism

Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.

But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't? — substantivalism

What are you talking about???

Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is?

Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic. — Frank Apisa

If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum?

What are you talking about???

Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is? — Frank Apisa

This is non-cognitivism. At least with respect to religious discussions but because its focus seems to be in terms of language philosophy it could be readily applied to other areas of philosophy. Here is a video also on the concept about some guy discussing said concept in reply to another. Because ignosticism is so closely in line (if not exactly the same) as the previous concept you saying using such a label is devoid of meaning made me think you would readily apply the same sentiment to theological non-cognitivism as well. Was going to give a link but that didn't work on my phone so I apologize for that straw-man.

I'll just add that ignosticism is similar to agnosticism, atheism, or theism in all their varied definitions as these are all usually tentative positions. If I recall, some make the distinction between strong or weak agnostics in which a weak agnostic is one in which they personally have no belief/evidential leaning one way or the other on a particular conception of god. Strong agnostics, however, either on all gods or particular gods would claim it's impossible to ever know a god truly does exist. It's conceivable that a militant strong agnostic (sounds funny) could shut down a discussion before one even begins by saying smugly "you can't know a god does/doesn't exist". Just as easily as you may think an ignostic/non-cognitivist would also attempt to do but note that just as an agnostic is one who holds their position in epistemological virtue of being open minded (openly admitting their ignorance of opinion) about being convinced such a entity exists an ignostic cannot even discuss the issue until (philosophy 101) you have coherently defined the concept in question.