180, Tim, jorndoe and others have yet to make their case — 3017amen

Make what case? Waiting for you to make yours. But then ...

I'm confused — 3017amen

Don't put words in others' mouths. :down: There isn't that much we know exhaustively, and making stuff up won't do. Anyway, suggested elsewhere that there's no particular deductive dis/proof regarding some such likes of ...
_{The Matrix (or Bostrom's thing perhaps)
Solipsism
Dream thought experiments
Intangible hobs that can control the weather
Applewhite's trans-dimensional super-beings
Last Thursdayism}
...
And that's then relevant to Frank Apisa's sort of (non-committal) agnosticism, of which you missed:

I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST — Frank Apisa

tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect?
— tim wood

Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist? — Frank Apisa

Sure. They do not seem to have any conceivable possible place - even as they are defined . Now. Those are reasons. And pretty good reasons.

When I ask them questions that, say, relate to existentialism, metaphysics and phenomenology, they seem to be at a loss. — 3017amen

That's because you're incoherent. Can't answer a crazy question. And still pending are your answers to quite a few questions almost all asking for you to explain some of your word salads. You need not reply; I'm out of the 3017amen business.

Make what case? Waiting for you to make yours. But — jorndoe

. Are you suggesting that atheism is about nothing? How can it be about nothing when there is something?
2. What does open-ended anything mean?

Another question for the Atheist is, if Love can't do what instinct does (or if it's an ancillary/redundant feature of consciousness) to effect survival needs, why should Love exist, what is its purpose? Surely it's not needed to procreate, when instinct is all that's needed... ? Is Love a Universal truth? How does Atheism square the metaphysical circle?

That's just for starters. I want to hear how you reconcile your atheism with materialism and conscious existence. Explain your own existence, can you? If you cannot, then we are back to: When an Atheist makes any and all oral or written statements, judgements, and/or propositions about his/her belief in no God(s), that puts them in the precarious and untenable position of having to defend same.

question. And still pending are your answers to quite a few questions almost all asking for you to explain some of your word salads. You need not reply; I'm out of the 3017amen business. That's because you're incoherent. — tim wood

Surely you're not hiding behind ad hominem, are you?
LOL

tim wood
4.8k
tim wood
4.8k
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
— Frank Apisa
Really? No reason to suspect?
— tim wood

Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.

Do you have any reasons to suspect gods CANNOT exist?
— Frank Apisa

Sure. They do not seem to have any conceivable possible place - even as they are defined . Now. Those are reasons. And pretty good reasons. — tim wood

Tim, that is embarrassing to even read. The best I could do with it is: What the hell does that even mean?

I have no idea of why you think that not only do gods not exist...

...but that it is not even possible for them to exist.

That, however, is one of the reasons I say that atheism and theism are much more closely related than atheism and agnosticism.

I get it. You blindly guess that there are no gods...and do not want to acknowledge that you are blindly guessing.

Fine. But when someone blindly guesses there IS at least one god...or blindly guesses that there are no gods...

...and then tries to make it seem "reasonable"...it comes across as tragic comedy.

I get it. You blindly guess that there are no gods... — Frank Apisa

Now you're being incoherent. You said:

absolutely no reason whatever. — Frank Apisa

. I provide a reason. So much for your understanding and use of language.

I have in front of me a cup of coffee. Is God in there? Only if he is capable of concealing himself from every test - and I'll take that as a no. Is he in any cup of coffee? Hmm, seems not, Cup of tea? Glass of beer or wine? In anything? Not in anything? You get the idea.

But he might, you claim! Can't disprove, you argue! Well, yes, you can. By every test, no God. And the tests these days are uniquely thorough. You're in the position of a man relying on magic. Or who insists there are actual cookies in a cookie jar that never has, never will, and most importantly cannot by definition contain cookies.

But you can have all the God you want in belief and idea, and the more powerful for it. Why stuck on paltry existence? In any case, the burden shifts to you.

And if you rely on your notions, then all the other possibilities, including those I listed above, "exist" equally. Even infinite gods. How do you sort that out?

Just for clarity. I'm not arguing against supreme beings. At the moment I'm alone in my room. Is there a supreme being in my room? You bet, me! (Until my cat comes back.) But there is nothing supernatural about me or my being, and my existence is provable (yes?).

You're God-in-the-gaps. But the gaps are all too small. Just believe instead, that's where you'll find your only real God.

tim wood
4.8k
I get it. You blindly guess that there are no gods...
— Frank Apisa
Now you're being incoherent. You said:
absolutely no reason whatever.
— Frank Apisa
. I provide a reason. So much for your understanding and use of language.

I have in front of me a cup of coffee. Is God in there? Only if he is capable of concealing himself from every test - and I'll take that as a no. Is he in any cup of coffee? Hmm, seems not, Cup of tea? Glass of beer or wine? In anything? Not in anything? You get the idea.

But he might, you claim! Can't disprove, you argue! Well, yes, you can. By every test, no God. And the tests these days are uniquely thorough. You're in the position of a man relying on magic. Or who insists there are actual cookies in a cookie jar that never has, never will, and most importantly cannot by definition contain cookies.

But you can have all the God you want in belief and idea, and the more powerful for it. Why stuck on paltry existence? In any case, the burden shifts to you.

And if you rely on your notions, then all the other possibilities, including those I listed above, "exist" equally. Even infinite gods. How do you sort that out?

Just for clarity. I'm not arguing against supreme beings. At the moment I'm alone in my room. Is there a supreme being in my room? You bet, me! (Until my cat comes back.) But there is nothing supernatural about me or my being, and my existence is provable (yes?).

You're God-in-the-gaps. But the gaps are all too small. Just believe instead, that's where you'll find your only real God. — tim wood

Okay, Tim, your blind guesses on this issue are very important to you. That is the case with many theists also.

Live with it.

Okay, Tim, your blind guesses on this issue are very important to you. T — Frank Apisa

You say there is "absolutely" no reason. I give you reason. You call that "a blind guess." That, Mr. Apisa, is crazy-making. I don't like crazy-making. In my experience crazy-making, being a species of lying, is at best mean-spirited and serves a hidden agenda. What is your agenda?

When talking to Frank - keep in mind that he appears to have a completely different definition of the word "god" than pretty much every other person on the planet (and likely most folks on this forum) - in particular his "god(s)" is not supernatural.

Frank Apisa Definition(s) of the word "God"

tim wood
4.8k
Okay, Tim, your blind guesses on this issue are very important to you. T
— Frank Apisa

You say there is "absolutely" no reason. I give you reason. You call that "a blind guess." That, Mr. Apisa, is crazy-making. I don't like crazy-making. In my experience crazy-making, being a species of lying, is at best mean-spirited and serves a hidden agenda. What is your agenda? — tim wood

You did not give me a reason. You might as well have written that ice cream tastes good.

My "agenda" is to speak the truth.

If you want to pretend defending your blind guesses is the truth...be my guest.

You did not give me a reason. — Frank Apisa

What is it, exactly, that you imagine (a) reason to be?

Are you suggesting [...] — 3017amen

, the suggestions I made were listed in the comment; maybe others made further suggestions that you somehow attribute to me. Still waiting for you to make your case (to use your verbiage, and mentioned before), or is that not forthcoming? Say, feel free to show how you derive your gods from love. Somehow I get an impression you have a long story to tell.

There isn't that much we know exhaustively, and making stuff up won't do. — jorndoe

tim wood
4.8k
You did not give me a reason.
— Frank Apisa
What is it, exactly, that you imagine (a) reason to be? — tim wood

A reason!

Stop being obtuse.

The fact that you cannot find an elephant in your room...or in your cup...is not a "reason" why elephants are impossible to exist.

The fact that you cannot detect a sentient being from a planet other than Earth...is not a "reason" why sentient beings from other planets are impossible to exist.

Knock it off. Get real, Tim.

Let's have a serious discussion.

What you said was "absolutely no reason to suspect." See: here:

Yes, absolutely no reason whatever. — "Frank

I gave you reason, and reason to suspect. Not a blind guess. But you deny the plain English of the thing. I ask you, then, what exactly you imagine a reason to be. And you evade like a Republican running for office. What do you think (a) reason is? That's the question.

Suppose some such super-being has really important particulars to tell everyone, perhaps wants to befriend everyone, as claimed by a few out there. Given real-life observations, that sure doesn't seem likely. Unless the being somehow also is deceptive.
There are some examples over here, that comprise reasons for not taking those claims particularly serious.
The more vague that claim, the less specific, the more convergent upon the unknowable ineffable, immunized against counter/evidence, the less particular reason for committing belief therein.

• I see no reason to suspect that intangible hobs that can control the weather CANNOT EXIST
• I see no reason to suspect that intangible hobs that can control the weather MUST EXIST

Yet, I don't recall having made decisions based on them (possibly) being real (along with whatever other such concoctions), don't recall having seriously pondered what they might be up to while doing more important stuff, what I could do to appease them, ... (my better half might get concerned)
If my epistemic attitude somehow was to demand that, then it'd be inconsistent with real life.
But hey, you never know, right...?

I answered these concerns previously. Unfortunately it can only amount to evidence of human frailty. They can't answer the question at hand and any opinion that such concerns add weight to an answer of no to the question are naive, philosophically. For example it is unlikely that there is a teapot orbiting the sun, but any arguments made about the impossibility of it are merely arguments of improbability, or unlikelyness. It can't be proved that it isn't orbiting the sun without actually looking at every square inch of space around the Sun. It's worse than this in reference to g/God because improbability, or unlikelyness is everywhere in the eyes of humans, who are evolved to perceive and act practically/pragmatically in the physical environment they are born into. Whereas the question at hand is about universal, or remote origins. An alien environment for the human mind. As such normal rational concerns are mute in answering it.

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa What you said was "absolutely no reason to suspect." See: here:
Yes, absolutely no reason whatever.
— "Frank
I gave you reason, and reason to suspect. Not a blind guess. But you deny the plain English of the thing. I ask you, then, what exactly you imagine a reason to be. And you evade like a Republican running for office. What do you think (a) reason is? That's the question. — tim wood

You have not given me a reason. You have typed some English words...and claim they are a reason.

Put your supposed reason into a syllogism with the conclusion being:

Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist.

Do it.

YOU CANNOT DO IT.

jorndoe!

Should I take your silence, as acquiescence, that you don't have answers to my (existential, metaphysical, and phenomenological) questions?

LOL

Now we're talkin'!!!! Let's see how the atheist can effectively use logic to determine the non-existence of a God !!!

II-2, camestres

All materially existing things have existential predicates.
God has no existential predicates.
God is not a materially existing thing.

You have not given me a reason. You have typed some English words...and claim they are a reason. — Frank Apisa

Maybe I should be like you. Prove they're not a reason.

@Frank Apisa@tim wood

Here's a little song you guys can sing along with. Sing it to the tune of "Let's Call the Whole Thing Off"

Tim says ‘A reason’
And Frank says ‘Not a reason’
Frank says ‘It’s logic”
And Tim says ‘No logic’
A reason!
A raison!
Horizon!
No reason!
LET”S CALL THE WHOLE THING OFF!!

All materially existing things have existential predicates.
God has no existential predicates.
God is not a materially existing thing. — tim wood

I could be wrong, but that structure doesn't quite seem right. Isn't it supposed to be: 1.All A are B, 2.All C are A, 3.Therefore, all C are B, ?

Also, let's look at each proposition to determine whether it's premise is sound or not.

2. You said God has no existential predicates. Do you mean God's attributes? How do you know the mind of God?

3. You said God is not a materially existing thing. How does that follow from your first and second premise? Also, the things-in-themselves (the nature of existence) are supposed to be metaphysical, no?
Take self-awareness for example, are those all material? And what about all of the meaning of life questions, how does that fit into your logic about existential predicates?

That's just a cursory read of your syllogism. Consider those questions then revise and resubmit.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LOILZ_D3aRg

So we better call the calling off off.

(I appreciate your post above, btw.)

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa
— tim wood

tim wood
4.8k
↪Frank Apisa

II-2, camestres

All materially existing things have existential predicates.
God has no existential predicates.
God is not a materially existing thing. — tim wood

C'mon, Tim. Try that kind of crap with an amateur, not with me.

We are not trying to show that "God (whatever that is) is a materially existing thing.

We are attempting (or YOU should be attempting) to show: "Therefore I have reason to suspect it is impossible for a god to exist."

Cannot get over that you tried something that silly. You seem more intelligent than that.

Amen, you do not know wtf you're talking about. No need to reply, because I won't.

Amen, you do not know wtf you're talking about. No need to reply, because I won't. — tim wood

Like Frank said, this isn't philosophy 101. Do your homework. Thus far, your argument is not sound, nor does it logically follow from any of your premises... .

Tic toc tic toc, LOL

It has to be said. You don't know, either. I award you the the banana with half-banana leaf cluster for being half an (***), because I do not believe you're a complete (***). Although you're aspiring here, which I do not understand.

And to your fellow traveler, @3017amen the whole two-mango sack with giant fig-leaf, so he can pretend, and have pretentious cover for what he pretends.

tim wood
4.8k
↪3017amen Amen, you do not know wtf you're talking about. No need to reply, because I won't. — tim wood

Actually, Amen is closer to being correct than you, Tim.

You gave a defective syllogism, which even if corrected would be of no more value to what we are discussing than:

All humans are mortal
John is a human
Therefore John is mortal