Terrapin Station
8.6k

to be sure of being correct." — Frank Apisa


I want to focus on this first. Isn't this a reference to certainty? — Terrapin Station

It has that disadvantage in the scheme of what we have been discussing. I recognized that when I wrote it.

I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess.

"Certainty" as Richard Feynman used to mention...is not something come by easily. It is very, very, very difficult to obtain...and most cases of certainty can be challenged by artful discussion.

I can say, I am "certain" that my name on my birth certificate is Frank Apisa...(and I can)...but even I am clever enough to challenge the "certain" using linguistic manipulation. (I'm not going to do it, so don't go there.)

But we can reasonable say, "I am certain London is the capital of England" "I am certain the mean temperature in Antarctica is lower than the mean temperature in the Sahara Desert"...an d things like that.

But for you to say "there are no gods"...is not in that same category. Your assertion is only a guess...and it has little to do with "certainty."

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet. — Frank Apisa

Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.

Apologies, I misquoted you.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction. — Frank Apisa

I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands.

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question? — Frank Apisa

My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express our consciousness of that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.

The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.

Why? It is not question of proof either way. It is a question of providing the most convincing arguments. That is all that can be done. — EnPassant

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are effectively saying that it is not possible to prove that God(s) exist, so in essence all anyone can do is provide a convincing argument. Granted I am at odds with this theory, as I have never heard it presented before and therefore it sounds more like an opinion rather than something that should actually be applied, but in any case it begs the question of why do you think that atheists ask for actual evidence of God(s) as opposed to accepting that a convincing argument is all that can be expected. Meanwhile it appears that theists don't believe that actual evidence is possible or can be provided, but they are also at odds because atheists won't accept anything less than actual evidence (perhaps) because they don't understand or believe that a convincing argument is all that be expected. Simply put, if that is all that can be expected, then you would have to convince atheists of this and they would actually have to accept and believe it, but I don't see that happening. I feel like atheists will just see the convincing argument expectation as an excuse for failure to provide actual evidence.

EnPassant
88

No. What accrues is a burden of proof.

That is why anyone with a functioning brain would not assert, "There are no gods" or "There is at least one god."

Do not make the assertion...but if you do, don't pretend there is no burden of proof to meet. — Frank Apisa


Ok, but I was not talking about assertions I was talking about beliefs. If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof. — EnPassant

For me...a "belief" in this context, is nothing more than a blind guess. I do not need any justifications...and would never ask for any. IF someone wants to guess one way or the other, let 'em.

Those were not my words...they were someone else's that I was quoting.


Apologies, I misquoted you.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We do not have a reasonable likelihood estimate in either direction. — Frank Apisa


I disagree. Are the arguments on either side not reasonable? A reasonable argument is not necessarily equivalent to truth but it can still be reasonable in terms of what the proponent understands. — En Passant

What do you disagree with.

We do not know if gods exist or not.

We have no way to estimate which is more likely.

What do you disagree with...and why?

By the way...what exactly is your position on the question? — Frank Apisa

My position is that the human intellect is trapped in linguistics and all manner of tautologies; philosophy is almost impossible when it comes to the 'big questions'. The intellect is not capable of understanding complex ontological realities. But the mind has abilities above primitive mentalism. It is conscious of ontological reality. What is needed is a language that can express that ontological reality. Thus far religion has done so, imperfectly.

The intellect can only construct primitive truths; scientific and mathematical truths. But for ontological truths a more evolved 'higher level' language is required; art, religion, music, literature etc are examples of higher language.
2 minutes ago
Reply
Options

Have no idea of what all that means.

I am saying we do not know if gods exist or not.

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

I may be wrong, but it sounds like you are effectively saying that it is not possible to prove that God(s) exist, so in essence all anyone can do is provide a convincing argument. — Maureen

Yes. But reasoned argument can be tantamount to proof. Good argument can, in principle, become so strong that it can't be convincingly refuted.
Proof belongs to the world of primitive matter and primitive diciplines like science and mathematics etc. Science is about how basic material relations obtain; how pieces of matter join together and how energy flows through systems. Mathematics is about numbers, the most primitive objects we can conceive of. Intellect is concerned with these basic truths. But the intellect cannot rise above these things. That is why we have religion, art, music etc, to express ontological realities. In short, no, I don't think God's existence can be proved in these terms but His existence can be argued for so convincingly that the arguments are close to proof.

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS. — Frank Apisa

Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for.

Convincing to who? :brow:

Convincing to who? :brow: — S

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments.

To anyone who is capable of understanding the arguments. — EnPassant

But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who are capable of understanding the arguments, yet do not find them convincing. Try again, or retract your claim.

But that's very obviously false. There are plenty of people who understand the arguments, yet are not convinced by them. Try again, or retract your claim. — S

Do they understand them? Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God.

EnPassant
92

No problem with making a guess about whether gods exist or not...but that is all it is...A GUESS.

We do not know which is more likely.

No problem with making a guess on which is more likely...but that is all it is...A GUESS. — Frank Apisa


Theist's position on God is not a guess, it is a conviction that can be convincingly argued for. — EnPassant

No more than the atheistic position...which is to say, it is nothing but blind guesswork.

You are way off base on this.

If Christians actually knew that their God exists, then they could easily provide irrefutable evidence and there would not constantly be disputes by atheists asking for said evidence. — Maureen

Not all things that are true can be proved. If I had a thought yesterday I cannot prove it. But it is true that I had that thought.

Do they understand them? — EnPassant

Yes, they understand what can be understood. Of course, nonsense can't be understood. And religious-sounding nonsense is still a type of nonsense. It doesn't get special treatment just because it is religious-sounding and religious-minded people feel it do should do so.

Understanding must be informed by consciousness. Spiritual truth is not an intellectual construction, it is a vision of the world as it really is. That vision includes God. — EnPassant

I think you need to go to Specsavers.

nonsense — S

Specsavers. — S

This is exactly the kind of rhetoric that prevents reasoned discussion and blocks the kind of understanding I am talking about.

I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess. — Frank Apisa

Do you see the only options as "Either P is a guess or it's certain"?

Terrapin Station
8.6k

I am not asking for certainty. BUT the fact that I am not...does not mean I will accept a guess as being anything other than a guess. — Frank Apisa


Do you see the only options as "Either P is a guess or it's certain"? — Terrapin Station

Where is this coming from?

If you have an argument to make...make it.

Theists, atheists, and agnostics are trapped in a ill conceived language game. They long for the comfort of language about every day objects that their debates just don’t provide.

It may be more helpful to understand the fruitfulness of an idea, to acknowledge a spectrum of senses of “there is”, and to have the freedom to choose based on what has been presented.

The Authorized Version of Prehistory Is Fundamentally False

Yah-weh sounds a lot like the way the Romans pronounced Jove (Yo-way). It means "Go! Get away!" and indicates a horrifying invasion from the Asian steppest, such as the one thousands of years later led by Genghis Khan. The Greek version is Io, a minor wandering goddess.

If we are allowed the idea of borrowing from entirely different languages, "Allah" is related to the Greek helios "sun." I doubt if the brain-dead fugitive Arab nomads could have come up with their own Supreme Being explanation, which was actually a primitive version of science, which they are genetically incapable of and seek to jealously destroy.

If someone says I believe God exists that is not an assertion that God exists, it is a belief. So, belief only requires argument to justify. Yes, if someone say that God certainly exists I guess there is a burden of proof. — EnPassant

Then what would be the difference between a belief and imaginary ideas? In my mind, "belief" is an idea about the world as it is, whereas an imaginary concepts are understood to NOT be about the world as it is. So, when someone claims a belief, are they making a claim about the world other than they have a belief? Is their belief about anything, or just something that exists in their head - like imaginary ideas?

A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. You have this idea, or inclination, that something may be the case but don't know how to go about proving it, or haven't the means to prove it. Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge.

Their Loaded Question Should Fire Blanks

Even, "Do you believe in God?" begs the question. If honestly phrased, it would be "Do you believe in the existence of God?"

Supposed I asked, "Do you believe in Trump?" It would not mean, "Do you believe in the existence of Trump?" So by phrasing it in their pushy and accusatory way, they sneakily lead us towards an affirmative answer, because of course belief in God, in the literal sense as used with Trump, means that the person being interrogated has to be a supporter of God, which by theological definition has to be necessary if He exists.

Where is this coming from? — Frank Apisa

It's just a question. Either you see things that way or you do not.

TheSageOfMainStreet
16
↪Frank Apisa


Their Loaded Question Should Fire Blanks

Even, "Do you believe in God?" begs the question. If honestly phrased, it would be "Do you believe in the existence of God?"

Supposed I asked, "Do you believe in Trump?" It would not mean, "Do you believe in the existence of Trump?" So by phrasing it in their pushy and accusatory way, they sneakily lead us towards an affirmative answer, because of course belief in God, in the literal sense as used with Trump, means that the person being interrogated has to be a supporter of God, which by theological definition has to be necessary if He exists. — TheSageOfMainStreet

Good point, Sage.

I deplore the "believe in" usage. I mentioned that many times here...and have written essays about it in other forums.

Not sure of what anyone means when they say, "I believe in democracy" for instance/

Very poor wording...as far as I am concerned.

If one is saying, "I prefer democratic government to totalitarian ones"...why not say that.

The "believe in" form is a dog.

Fact is, I do not even like the use of the word "believe" in discussions of this sort. When discussing the existence or non-existence of gods...there is almost nothing to work with that is unambiguous. So if you are actually saying, "My guess is..." or "I estimate that..." or "It is my opinion that..."...

...use those forms. j

I "believe" is a disguise.

Since "Nice Guys Finish Last," I'd Rather Be Naughty


How about the non-existence of a similarly desired benefactor, Santa Claus? Is that a guess? Because his existence or non-existence can both be called "guesses," do we give equal credence to greedy children?

I actually fell for Pascal's Inquisition-fear nonsense when a Hawk used it about a missile system, "If I am right, it will save us from incineration by the Soviets; if I am wrong, it will only waste a tiny portion of the budget."

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Where is this coming from? — Frank Apisa


It's just a question. Either you see things that way or you do not. — Terrapin Station

So that (your question) is binary?

That reminds me of the old, "I'd rather be dead than red."

Ya mean there are no other choices?

Once you have evidence that can be tested by others and others test it and get the same results, then it becomes a theory, or more than a belief. It becomes knowledge. — Harry Hindu

True, but the kinds of evidence that can be tested and shared are simple or primitive truths. Science is primitive. Matter is primitive. The atheists are making a mistake in trying to force ontological matters into the primitive framework of matter and explain them in material terms. It is this kind of thing that leads to absurd attempts to explain everything - including ontological matters - in terms of 'survival advantage'.

How can someone paint a masterpiece? - survival advantage.
How can someone create a symphony? - survival advantage. They can always find a way to squeeze it in.

A belief would be more akin to a hypothesis. — Harry Hindu

But not all beliefs are abstract. If I had a thought I believe that I really did have that thought. That belief is not a hypothesis, it is more direct than that. There is intellectual knowledge and there is 'ontological knowledge' if you will. It muddies waters by confusing these two types of knowledge. Knowledge of God is direct. Belief in God is direct. It is not hypothetical. It only becomes hypothetical when it is translated into abstract argument.

TheSageOfMainStreet
17
↪Frank Apisa

Since "Nice Guys Finish Last," I'd Rather Be Naughty


How about the non-existence of a similarly desired benefactor, Santa Claus? Is that a guess? Because his existence or non-existence can both be called "guesses," do we give equal credence to greedy children?

I actually fell for Pascal's Inquisition-fear nonsense when a Hawk used it about a missile system, "If I am right, it will save us from incineration by the Soviets; if I am wrong, it will only waste a tiny portion of the budget." — TheSageOfMainStreet

You must have felt terrible when you realized you'd fallen for it.

Pascal's Wager and Occum's Razor are the two most over-used; inappropriately used; erroneously used...philosophical memes. I laugh at them.

But back to that other thought...Santa...or the Easter Bunny...or Teapots and the like.

One can have an opinion on any of them (and most are absurd)...but if one insists that there are no teapots orbiting the sun...one better be prepared to PROVE that assertion in a rigorous discussion.

Same with Santa Claus.

Same with the Easter Bunny.

Same with the Tooth Fairy.

So that (your question) is binary?

Ya mean there are no other choices? — Frank Apisa

Correct. Otherwise, what would you suggest as a third option?

Terrapin Station
8.6k

So that (your question) is binary?

Ya mean there are no other choices? — Frank Apisa


Correct. Otherwise, what would you suggest as a third option? — Terrapin Station

Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.

Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"

For an answer of "YES" try these out:

Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.

Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.

Either it is certain...or it is a wish.

Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.

Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.

Either it is certain...or it is not.


For an answer of "NO"...try the same ones.

Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.

Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"

For an answer of "YES" try these out:

Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.

Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.

Either it is certain...or it is a wish.

Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.

Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.

Either it is certain...or it is not. — Frank Apisa

Say what?

I'm not saying that it's a fact that either something is x or y.

I'm asking you if it's the case that you use the term "guess" so that either something is certain or it's a guess. Either you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way. (or if you think there's a third option aside from either it being the case that you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way, you could explain what the third option is maybe)

Terrapin Station
8.6k

Not sure if you are kidding with me...or just not thinking for the moment.

Let the P of your question be "Will science find a cure for most cancers during the next two decades?"

For an answer of "YES" try these out:

Either it is certain...or it is an estimate.

Either it is certain...or it is an informed opinion.

Either it is certain...or it is a wish.

Either it is certain...or it is an approximation.

Either it is certain...or it is close enough to certain for government work.

Either it is certain...or it is not. — Frank Apisa


Say what?

I'm not saying that it's a fact that either something is x or y.

I'm asking you if it's the case that you use the term "guess" so that either something is certain or it's a guess. Either you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way. (or if you think there's a third option aside from either it being the case that you use the term that way or you do not use the term that way, you could explain what the third option is maybe) — Terrapin Station

You are not very clear.

But now that I understand your question...

...my answer is, NO.