Devans99
1.2k
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
I do not know which God it is. It could be the Flying Spaghetti Monster for all I know. There is an almost zero chance that any of the worlds religions are correct so it is hard to identify God with a particular Religion. Some religions have some things partially correct. For example, I believe catholics believe that God is timeless which is correct. — Devans99
You are wrong. There are no logical arguments for that God — Frank Apisa
If you want to debate the existence of a first cause, best to do it here:
https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/5577/was-there-a-first-cause-reviewing-the-five-ways/p2 — Devans
I have laid out all the arguments in the OP. — Devans
If you want to think there is no empirical evidence against that god...think it.
You are wrong. — Frank Apisa
What empirical evidence can you give against God? My God is not omni-present BTW.
Since you are not talking about "a god"...but rather about "God"...and referring to it as "he"...I will make the assumption I made, because it almost certainly is that god — Frank Apisa
If you are suggesting you can make arguments for that god here and that I cannot respond...I have a suggestion for that suggestion.
Do you want to hear it or are you pretty sure you know what my suggestion would be? — Frank Apisa
If you want to think there is no empirical evidence for what may not exist...a tortured bit of logic...think it. — Frank Apisa
Devans99
1.2k
Since you are not talking about "a god"...but rather about "God"...and referring to it as "he"...I will make the assumption I made, because it almost certainly is that god — Frank Apisa
Seriously, I am not religious. — Devans99
If you are suggesting you can make arguments for that god here and that I cannot respond...I have a suggestion for that suggestion.
Do you want to hear it or are you pretty sure you know what my suggestion would be? — Frank Apisa
I would like to hear your suggestion — Devans
(and any counter arguments you can make against God). — Devans
If you want to think there is no empirical evidence for what may not exist...a tortured bit of logic...think it. — Frank Apisa
Well you could for example show the universe was not created or show there was no first cause; both would be equivalent to disproving God's existence.
That god is so obviously mythological...no arguments are really needed. — Frank Apisa
If you want to think a god made the Earth...placed it in orbit around a star...placed that star in a galaxy with 250 billion other stars...and placed that galaxy in among hundreds of billions of other galaxies...
...and still cares about what some guys does with his own dick... — Frank Apisa
If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa
If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — 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
You're not following what I'm saying.
You brought up the following above: "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."
Is that identical to simply saying "It's logically possible," or is that something different than simply saying "it's logically possible"? — Terrapin Station
Fooloso4
357
If I say I do not have a belief that any gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa
But that is not what you said. You did not say you do not have a belief that 'X' you said I do not "believe" 'X'.
If I say I do not have a belief that no gods exist...THAT IS NOT AMBIGUOUS. — Frank Apisa
Again, that is not what you said. When you say that you do not believe 'X' that does not mean that you have no belief about 'X'. As you said, precise language is a must.
You agreed that it was AMBIGUOUS when I used rain in place of gods. Or when you say "Okay" you are simply being non-committal? AMBIGUOUS?
I strive to express myself simply and clearly. I learned this from "The Elements of Style" many years ago. although it took me many years to put it into practice. Given what you have said about yourself, I think it likely that you too have come across this idea. But evidently you do not recognize its value. Why else would you say something like "I do not believe 'X'" when you mean "I hold to no beliefs regarding 'X'" in the context of this discussion?
— Fooloso4
I'll ask again: what is the point? Why phrase something in a way that you know will lead to misunderstanding? — Fool
I only ever meant to make the point that the logical possibility of an undetectable god means that your criticism about evidence misses the point that was being made. It misses the point because it can only be criticism against a detectable god, and it was never specified that a detectable god is what is being talked about. On the contrary, it was clear to me that it was an unspecified god that was being talked about. — S
I am making a statement about the absurdity of supposing the default position on an issue where there is no evidence of being...is that what is being considered DOES NOT EXIST.
The default should be, I DO NOT KNOW IF IT EXISTS. — Frank Apisa
Apparently you are not able to acknowledge that saying "I do not believe "X"...IS NOT the same as saying "I believe not-X." — Frank Apisa
There were NO "beliefs" held there, Foolso. — Frank Apisa
I did NOT express a "belief." I mentioned that I do not hold certain "beliefs." — Frank Apisa
I also do not "believe" any gods exist, Fooloso. — Frank Apisa
We are of the same mind regarding the first belief. — Fooloso4
My belief is that gods do not exist. If we are of the same mind regarding this then when you say you also do not believe any gods exist then you are expressing the same belief as I am. — Fooloso4
If that's all you wanted to talk about, then why didn't you make that clear sooner? Why waste both of our time like that? — S
How am I supposed to know that you weren't following the conversation? I quoted the bit I just re-quoted above, and that's what I was responding to. Then Frank responded to my comment about it. — Terrapin Station
You are, of course, allowed to hold contradictory beliefs, but I prefer not to. — Fooloso4
Maureen
21
Update: I am using a touchscreen laptop and the mouse pad no longer works properly which is inhibiting my ability to quote texts. I know that this is possible, but I just wanted to explain why I haven't done it or haven't been doing it.
With that said, ↪Frank Apisa
You are assuming that any Gods exist. It would not matter which God or Gods anyone was referring to in a conversation unless some Gods or one particular God exists among the one(s) being referenced. But as I said before, no one knows if any God(s) do or do not exist. If no one had ever seen elephants before or knew about them and they existed but only lived on another planet, then they would exist but you would not know that they exist. I don't even know that there would be any theories about their existence, it would more than likely simply be that they exist and you don't know it. This example is empirically no different than God(s) since no one has seen God(s) and therefore theoretically no one knows if He or they exist. But as in the example that I gave, God(s) could exist and we just are not aware of it for whatever reasons, just as elephants could theoretically be confined to another planet and we might not know that they exist as a result. With that said, I am particularly irritated by the idea that anyone INSISTS that God(s) absolutely does or does not exist, when as I have just explained NOBODY knows this. It seems as if there are so many people on this forum and elsewhere who cannot think or understand that you don't know whether God exists, or either you just refuse to admit this. It's one thing not to admit that God(s) does or does not exist, but please at least accept that you DO NOT KNOW either way. I find it hilarious that we have spent 11 pages arguing this simply because people refuse to accept the initial point that I made. — Maureen
This uncertainty is then like a third coin toss... And so on. We end up, as Wittgenstein does in 'On Certainty' with a bedrock of propositions which we simply do not doubt, not ones we cannot talk about doubting, just ones we do not, in practice, doubt.
We cannot, in practice, act as if things exist with properties such as being impossible to detect, even in theory. Properties such as manifest influence on spacetime without being located in spacetime. In practice, "God doesn't exist", or "God probably doesn't exist" are both perfectly rational statements to make because it is impossible to even proceed with thought, let alone life, without simply assuming some hinge propositions to be sound.
I think each person may even have different hinge propositions, but that's another discussion. The point is, the coin tossing has to stop somewhere. — Isaac
aren't we questioning the possible reality, not how we casually treat things?
It seems important in epistemology that we can't logically rule out the actual existence of certain conceptions of god. — S
Unless a proposition is demonstrated through sound logic to imply a contradiction, then it is reasonable to maintain that it is logically possible. The actual existence of an undetectable god is one such proposition. — S
If you define existence in that way, then by that definition, you're right and I'm wrong. And if I define a horse as cooked bread, then by that definition, I'm right to say that I had cheese on horse this morning, and you can't argue against me on my own terms. — S
I agree that, if I'm right I'm only right by definition, but I disagree that it is the same as your ad absurdum. I have reasons for defining existence the way I have, using the term that way will not in any way hamper my being understood, and no one has yet provided any reason why I shouldn't. All three such criteria of reasonableness are not met with your horse/toast example.
Maybe, after discussion, you'll convince me that my definition is useless, or inappropriate here, but until that has happened, it remains a reasonable one. Now if you need to check why defining 'horse as cooked bread is unreasonable... — Isaac
There is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe gods exist" and there is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe there are no gods."
Both are truthful. — Frank Apisa
If you are too stupid to see the point I was making — Frank Apisa
'Donald Davidson argues that language competence must not simply involve learning a set meaning for each word, and then rigidly applying those semantic rules to decode other people's utterances. Rather, he says, people must also be continually making use of other contextual information to interpret the meaning of utterances, and then modifying their understanding of each word's meaning based on those interpretations.'
If you are too stupid to see the point I was making...or why I was making it...go talk with someone about movies or TV programs, because these kinds of discussions are beyond you. — Frank Apisa
You shouldn't define it that way because I can conceive of the existence of an undetectable being. It makes sense. Yet your definition rules it out. — S
Well, I trust your intellect, so that's good enough for me, but I can't conceive of such a thing existing, so we either agree to differ or you tell me a bit more about this thing you conceive. Presumably it can't do anything (since that would have an impact, and therefore be detectable), it can't take up any space or time. Are we talking about something like an idea (real, but non-physical) or something in another realm, or in this realm but another dimension (although I would think that made it at least theoretically detectable)? — Isaac
Fooloso4
364
There is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe gods exist" and there is absolutely no ambiguity about the comment, "I do not believe there are no gods."
Both are truthful. — Frank Apisa
You need to look up the definition of ambiguity. The fact that a statement is truthful does not mean it is not ambiguous. It I say: "I do not believe it is not going to rain", that is a truthful statement if I do not believe it is not going to rain. The question is, what do I mean when I say this? If I believed that it was going to rain that would be consistent with the statement. If I meant I have no belief one way or the other that too would be consistent with the statement. So, how do you know on the basis of the statement which one I meant? — Fooloso4
If you are too stupid to see the point I was making — Frank Apisa
Of course I saw the point! I do not think it helpful to call people stupid but if I did I would say that you are the one who is stupid for your inability to see why your initial statement was ambiguous. Not believing X does not mean that you believe not-X, but that could be what you meant. I would also call you stupid for not understanding that meaning involves a great deal more than making a true statement. — Fool
A member sent me this privately:
'Donald Davidson argues that language competence must not simply involve learning a set meaning for each word, and then rigidly applying those semantic rules to decode other people's utterances. Rather, he says, people must also be continually making use of other contextual information to interpret the meaning of utterances, and then modifying their understanding of each word's meaning based on those interpretations.'
When you provided further context, namely that you hold no beliefs about gods, then and only then was your statement no longer ambiguous as to what you meant. — Fool
If you are too stupid to see the point I was making...or why I was making it...go talk with someone about movies or TV programs, because these kinds of discussions are beyond you. — Frank Apisa
You know nothing about my educational level or training. There are several reasons why I do not make it known, but one is that it is a good source of amusement as some with little or no training in philosophy draw conclusions about me that only demonstrate their lack of education.
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.