Are you saying that it's not logically possible that we do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station
So if it's logically possible, and logical possibility is sufficient to justify a stance, then logical possibility is sufficient to justify both P and not-P, right? If not, why not?
(P and not-P in this case being "We do know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist," and "We don't know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist." ) — Terrapin Station
Either logical possibility is sufficient to justify a claim or it isn't. If something else is required--so that there are some cases where it's justified and other cases where it's not, then logical possibility isn't actually sufficient. Something else is required. "Sufficient" means that nothing else is required. — Terrapin Station
Nothing other than the logical possibility of an undetectable god is required to justify the claim that you aren't justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, exists. — S
Okay. Is something other than the logical possibility of a necessarily detectable god required to justify the claim that you are justified in claiming that you know that god, unspecified, doesn't exist? — Terrapin Station
Terrapin Station
8.3k
I didn't. — Frank Apisa
Then why did you bring it up when I was talking about evidence? — Terrapin Station
Yes, because the fact that we're talking about god, unspecified, means that we're talking about god, broadly, as per a number of possible conceptions, one of which is an undetectable god. The actual existence of a god as per that particular conception is what you'd have to rule out as impossible. — S
Wouldn't these be factors in addition to logical possibility? — Terrapin Station
You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa
If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa
Fooloso4
349
You concede there is the possibility of no gods...and with that, you must concede the possibility of gods. — Frank Apisa
I do not have to concede that possibility since I have acknowledged it all along. See the distinction I made between epistemic agnosticism and pistemic atheism. Allow me to help you with that. I make no knowledge claims about the existence of gods, they may or may not exist, I do not know. But I do not believe they do exist.
If you are telling me there are no gods — Frank Apisa
I am not telling you anything about the gods. I know nothing of gods. I am telling you what I believe. It is not a guess and it is not blind. It is a matter of not finding anything that leads me to think there are gods, but that is not a guess about whether there are or not. If I were asked to guess I say that barring some further development it seems me that there are not. It woul — Fooloso4
I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.
AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.
Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa
We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4
Fooloso4
352
I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso.
AND I do not "believe" there are no gods.
Are you of that same mind? — Frank Apisa
We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4
S
9.3k
We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. As to the second, no. You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4
There is no contradiction in affirming both of those statements. People who think that there's a contradiction just aren't good at logic. — S
Devans99
1.2k
Returning to the OP, the fact is that no-one can prove definitely if there is a God or not. So it is also a fact that everyone should be agnostic.
Both Theist and Atheist standpoints challenge logic. — Devans99
There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.
There was nothing contradictory expressed.
This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must. — Frank Apisa
There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.
WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa
And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa
Fooloso4
353
There also are people who "believe" no gods exist. I am not one of them either. So,, I do not "believe" no gods exist...which I also said.
There was nothing contradictory expressed.
This is a philosophical forum. Precise language is a must. — Frank Apisa
If your point was to say that you hold no beliefs about gods then why not say that? Instead you expressed a belief - using a double negative. It is not a question of logic but of determining what you are trying to say. — Fooloso4
If I say that I do not believe that it is not going to rain, that may mean I believe it is going to rain or that I hold no belief about whether it will rain or not. — Fool
You play on the ambiguity but why? To what end? If you hold to the idea that precise language is a must then why use ambiguous language?
I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa
Devans99
1.2k
There was a time when I used to use the term "acknowledged agnostic"...to differentiate people who acknowledged their agnosticism from those who would not...which is a return to the OP.
WHY do those who do not acknowledge it...not do so? — Frank Apisa
I think both sides (Theist and Atheist) take a lot of pleasure from promoting their point of view and trying to 'persuade' other to their side. — Devans99
And perhaps, why are there people who acknowledge it and yet who still insist that their guess (one way or the other) is a more logical guess than the guesses of people who guess the other way? — Frank Apisa
There are logical arguments for God. There are no logical arguments against God. — Devans
There is empirical empirical for God. — Devans
There is no empirical evidence against God. Hence the die is weighted.
Fooloso4
354
I did not use ambiguous language. I was asking you an appropriate question. Go back and see where I used it...and why I used it that way. — Frank Apisa
If what you say can mean either of two different things then it is ambiguous. I am not interested in playing this game. — Fooloso4
From this point forward, when you use the word "God" the way you do, I will assume you mean a specific god. Either tell me which god you speak of...or I will assume you mean what I consider the almost cartoon god of the Old Testament. — Frank Apisa
You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God — Frank Apisa
If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.
You are wrong. — Frank Apisa
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.