EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa

It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa

Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser

Thank you.

Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant

Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.

I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist...

EnPassant
99
EnPassant: Truth is a vision of the world as it really is. This vision comes from God. This is what, in some religions, is called enlightenment.

Is it a blind guess...pretending to be something more? — Frank Apisa


It is my understanding of the world. It is far from a blind guess.

And since it is dependent entirely on a blind guess that there is a "god"...why should it be given any more consideration than one would any other blind guess? — Frank Apisa


Why should it be blind guess? Do you think all theists are stupid or guessing things out of thin air? Don't you think people put a lot of thought into philosophy and religion? Philosophers don't proceed according to blind guesses, they think and if they believe in God it is because their thinking has convinced them. From a philosophical point of view belief is a conviction with a lot of thought behind it, not a blind guess.

And yet, in the context of debate, this looks a lot like an ad hominem, a personal attack. Such approaches have a long and wholly unsuccessful history within debating circles. When applied to humans, they are counter-productive, in terms of the debate. No point. — Pattern-chaser


Thank you. — EnPassant

No problemo, EnPassant.

You are allowed to blindly guess there is a god...and call that blind guess a "belief"...and suppose it came from thought and reflection and is not a blind guess.

There is absolutely no ad hominem attack intended.

Just as you are speaking what you suppose to be the truth...

...I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth.

Devans99
1.6k

Why should it be blind guess? — EnPassant


Frank is a committed agnostic I think. He denies the validity of empirical and theoretical evidence of a first cause. He also denies we can use probability to induce the existence of God.

I think maybe Frank with his reluctance to trust empirical and theoretical evidence is borderline solipsist... — Devans99

What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know. And I also am someone unwilling to pretend I can calculate probability for things I cannot.

Give it a try. It won't hurt.

What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa

I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress.

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.

I guess you're a septic - and like most septics, wrong. — Ricardoc

Sorry to make fun of your harmless gaff, but I think I'll start calling all the skeptics septics too. Seems a great plan!

sep·tic
/ˈseptik/
nounNorth American
plural noun: septics

a drainage system incorporating a septic tank.

One thing at a time. We were talking about Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. I was not ready to move on to a different, possibly related argument. — S

I apologize and I admit my mistake. Please allow me to clarify.

That criticism was not a criticism of theism. How could you even think that? It was specifically a criticism of Pascal's argument, as paraphrased by you. — S

The supporting arguments behind that, were like that of an attack to theism. Theism and faith is not wishful thinking, or delusion. Because faith is belief in the unknown, we don't suppose a belief because it is in our favor of preference, but to rely on the evidence that we are provided with, which links back to Pascal. Altogether this has nothing to do with Atheism not being able to understand the evidence, but because Theism epitomizes the evidence.

It was more of, in my perspective, theism being frowned upon in the table of philosophy, and when that problem is addressed, it is then modified to actually having to be scrutinized.

Me using the words egocentric, arrogant and whatnot, were not to you - but to the applications of satire into argument. Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe?

Sorry for the late reply.

So back to your claim. If theism should deserve to be in the table of philosophy, it requires to be under the same level of scrutiny as every other field. However, as long as theists continue with flaws in their reasoning with biases and fallacies, that's not possible. You can't have the cake and eat it too. — Christoffer

The revolutionizing comprehension of logic over the years to innovate arguments for the existence of God, I would not say were disproved. The arguments I am trying to say are: The cosmological, teleological, and moral ground arguments. Rather than disproving the argument in its entirety, the probabilities are more to be addressed than the idea implied. And repeated, I haven't seen any argument to disprove these.

And you need to change your argument if there are valid counter-arguments. — Christoffer

As a theist, consistency is paramount to the justification of my belief. At least one, small inconsistency breaks theism as an already precarious belief. I always attempt to be consistent in every meticulous section of argument, and with that determination for theism in general I think theism should, as you mention, 'get in the game' for the table of philosophy. Lastly, I think scrutiny should not have to involve satire - although satire is ubiquitous to every known topic, in a forum like this is where I'd least expect it.

To conclude, Theism, as I presume we could all agree to, is a very difficult belief to justify. Clearing out things, faith is not wishful thinking or delusion, because faith is belief in the unknown - which explicitly, has nothing to do with selectively changing the principles of the existence of God for our preferences. Faith is an ideological connection to God, not believing in a deity because it makes us feel better or benefits us altogether.

Sorry for the late reply.

When a person testifies to a magic trick that's different than my noetic subsystem of mind being evaluative & supervisory.

Hi Frank, I've come to a conclusion that if when I'm talking to a young lady I'm interested in then my chances are greatly improved telling her, "I'm a lion tamer" rather than the truth, "I'll never treat you right, I'm a chronic masturbator."

That's why I never understood why people do that, claim a position. On what grounds? I think reality should be like that movie, the first part, where no one ever lies, The Invention of Lying. She takes a call during their dinner date, "No mom, I won't be having sex with him. He's fat, has a snub nose, a frog in the face." The look on his face hearing that is priceless.

When I tell someone, "I believe in the existence of God" what have I told them that they can know? Nothing. That's why "the denial of the deity claim" and "coming out atheist" have no relationship.

Bernard Carr, a cosmologist and self proclaimed "atheist/naturalist" I think says it best, "If you don't want God then you better have a multiverse." See, God does something real, that's why His opponents are always trying to replace His Holy acts with something not so holy.

You know what would be cool? If what you typed there had something to do with anything I've said. That's certainly a list of words, though.

Thank you, I have many such lists including a real long one I got from a so-called self professed "naturalist" when I asked for evidence the "brain produces the mind." Got it in a data base, 30 books 100 articles, about 1,000 different hypotheses.

Think about this Mr. Station, if when you talked and I responded the best I could to what you said without changing things up much, then that wouldn't be very interesting for either of us.

"Something to do with what I said." Instantly my stream of consciousness took me back to what must be all of our favorite philosophical movie, The Big Lebowski.

Walter: Oh, please, dear! For your information, the Supreme Court has roundly rejected prior restraint!

The Dude: Walter, this is not a First Amendment thing, man.

Truth must come to us from God. — EnPassant

That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you.

French Philosopher Blaise Pascal argued that evidence for God is clear to the people who are willing to believe, not because it is mutually exclusive, but because your perspective is changed when you are absorbed into tradition and belief. Whereas the evidence is also vague enough for the people who do not believe, will not understand.
— SethRy

Interesting. Considered and thoughtful. :up: :smile: — Pattern-chaser

Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise.

Before the discovery of gold, gold existed, though it was not evident.
Now by the same characteristics, I say God exists - because it is possible. — Shamshir

That simply doesn't follow.

The first cause is timeless; beyond causality, needs no creating. The tenses past, present and future do not apply; the first cause just IS. — Devans99

And is made of spaghetti.

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc. — Devans99

Now there's a surprise.

...and I have a good justification for doing so. — Devans99

I believe that you believe you do.

And is made of spaghetti. — S

There is no prove of that yet (that was a joke proof I gave you on the other thread).

Devans99
1.6k

What I am, Devans...is a person willing to acknowledge I do not know the things I do not know — Frank Apisa


I wonder though that the 'I do not know attitude' is the only valid attitude to take? If everyone had that attitude then we would not progress so fast I think. Not saying there is anything wrong with that attitude, it is valuable to have neutrally positioned people in on the discussion. But I feel we also need people to champion certain ideas else we will not make much progress - ideas are the live blood of progress. — Devans99

Okay, think that. But I think the reason for most progress...is the acknowledgement that we do not know. If scientists thought they knew everything...there would be no progress.

So we differ on that.

So in summary, I am sticking to my guns about a first cause, a start of time etc... and I have a good justification for doing so.

I expected that.

And I, and several others here, will continue to disagree with you.

.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa

Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it.

What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?

The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.

Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.

Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on.

That just looks like preaching now. You can't just assume things like that. Maybe this is the wrong forum for you. — S

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?

* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions.

That simply doesn't follow. — S

The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing?

Sometimes I wonder whether you do the opposite to me on purpose. I analyse the argument, think about it critically, and offer up criticism. You just smile and offer vague praise. — S

I just thought that was sarcasm.

The possibility of something, refers to something.
If it does not exist, it would be nothing.
How do you refer to nothing? — Shamshir

You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism.

The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does.

EnPassant
101

.I am speaking what I suppose to be the truth.

I mean you no disrespect. But I will speak what I see to be the truth. — Frank Apisa


Ok, we are on the same page now. The question of theism/atheism is not for want of 'evidence' if we adhere to the simplest definition of evidence: everything that is there. The universe and everything in it. — EnPassant

Thank you, EP.

I agree with that last part. I try always to qualify my comments about "evidence" with the word "unambiguous."

EVERYTHING is evidence...but whether it is evidence that at least one god exists...or that no gods exist...is the question.

What is this evidence for? Theists and atheists differ in this respect because 'evidence for' is subjective. What to do?

The only way forward is to form arguments about what the evidence seems to suggest. Theists argue for the Fine Tuning Argument. Atheists counter this with the multiverse etc.

Theists argue for design in the natural world. Atheists try to explain the appearence of design as an illusion and try to replace it with elaborate arguments concerning random mutations etc.

Which arguments are most coherent and have most explanatory power? That is the only level the debate can proceed on. — EnPassant

Slight disagreement here.

I would word it: Is it possible to determine if the arguments favored by theists are stronger than the arguments favored by atheists...or the other way around.

And my answer to THAT question always comes up: There is absolutely, positively no logical way to decide.

One cannot arrive at an of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one.

I just thought that was sarcasm. — SethRy

What? His comment? I'm not sure he's even capable of sarcasm. I thought it was just another uncritical back patting.

Pascal's argument, according to Anselm's separation of necessity and contingency, would not be applicable to the Timeless Flying Spaghetti Monster for the reason that this deity has no strong ground to justify its necessity - I suppose we can agree to that? maybe? — SethRy

The message that I'm getting from you is that we should forget about your original argument and focus on a different argument about necessity and contingency. Or, if not a different argument, then a part of the argument you referred to which you never even mentioned originally.

I don't agree with your handling of this, but hey ho. The next step would be for you to elaborate, and then I can test whether, like last time, the same reasoning can be applied in the case of, for example, the Flying Spaghetti Monster, or some other ridiculous invention.

Ok, but what other means do we have to find truth? The intellect has failed. If the intellect could discern truth it would have done so a long time ago. No matter what philosophers say it can be dismantled by clever arguments. Philosophy is like a bunch of viruses constantly mutating and devouring each other. Philosophies change like fashions on the catwalk. If our puny intellects cannot discern truth - and they have failed miserably* - what should we do?

* Except when it comes to the primitive truths of materialism and science. But these truths are too basic to resolve ontological questions. — EnPassant

Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa

That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task.

Once again, I wonder why you're here if that's what you think. If we don't know enough, then we should just accept that we don't know enough, not invent fantastical stories to fill the gaps in our knowledge. — S

I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation.

EnPassant
102

One cannot arrive at any of these four things (to follow) using logic, reason, science or math:

1) There is at least one GOD.
2) There are no gods.
3) It is more likely that there is at least one GOD than that there are no gods.
4) It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one. — Frank Apisa


That is exactly what I'm saying. It is not possible. So we need to reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'. The rationale of science is primitive so we need a looser language more appropriate to the task. — EnPassant

What do you see as wrong or inappropriate about simply acknowledging that we do not know if gods exist or not?

IF people inclined toward "there are no gods" do as you suggest "...reason it out using a broader definition of 'reason'..."...they will come up with "there are no gods." And if someone inclined toward "there is at least one GOD" do it...they will come up with "there is at least one GOD."

You do not need a "looser language more appropriate to the task." You need to accept that we cannot know...have no unambiguous evidence...

...and can only make a blind guess about it.

Which is what I have been arguing all along.

I'm here to address the question of the thread which is why the argument cannot be decided using an intellect that is earthbound and limited by all kinds of tautologies. The answer is that the intellect is not up to the task. — EnPassant

Then the reasonable conclusion would be agnosticism.

The stories are not 'invented'. They are, by the implicit argument of theism, given by revelation. — EnPassant

Hahahaha.

Instead of insisting they are invented you should be debating whether religion is inspired by revelation. — EnPassant

There's nothing to debate. Look up Hitchen's razor.

You're playing a trick with language, also known as sophism. — S

I play no tricks. I merely asked a question.

The particular something in this case would be a concept, more specifically God. No one is arguing over the existence of the concept, so if that was all you were getting at, then you've missed the point. What's being argued over is whether this concept has an actual referent. You haven't demonstrated that it does. — S

What I have done is removed the separation.
What you do, is simply add separation.

The concept of sound is sound itself. Without sound, there is no concept of sound; it becomes a concept of nothing.
Even if I should separate, as you do - the concept of the object exists mutually with the object, just as the outline with its filling.