If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it. — substantivalism

Now you're getting it. The "does god exist" question doesn't model reality very well. The vast majority of the time that question seeks a simple yes/no answer. The example of space illustrates that reality is rather more complicated than such a simplistic yes/no, exists or not paradigm. And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers.

Or, we of course have the option to continue to endlessly repeat the same old arguments for another 500 years in order to arrive at a destination we already inhabit.

I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange.

Hippyhead
127
If it doesn't model reality we throw it out and if it does we keep it.
— substantivalism

Now you're getting it. The "does god exist" question doesn't model reality very well. — Hippyhead

It does...except to people who have blindly guessed that "reality" is what they say it is and have guessed it to be a model where the "do any gods exist" question doesn't does not fit in.

That claptrap is a travesty to anyone able to manage their way through Philosophy 101.

The "god question"...is integral to the "What is this all about" question...which is the spine and brain of philosophy.

The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. Or at least ashamed enough not to pollute a forum dedicated to philosophic discourse.

The vast majority of the time that question seeks a simple yes/no answer. The example of space illustrates that reality is rather more complicated than such a simplistic yes/no, exists or not paradigm. And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead

Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence.

Or, we of course have the option to continue to endlessly repeat the same old arguments for another 500 years in order to arrive at a destination we already inhabit.

Oh, the narcissism.

Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about — Frank Apisa

Agreed, much better philosophically, but seen as much worse by all those whose personal identity depends on them having an answer which is superior to somebody else's answer. So let's address that agenda, given that it tends to dominate philosophy forums.

The theist gets to pretend they are superior to atheists, and atheists get to pretend they are superior to theists. In both cases, the pretender can only position themselves above a limited number of people.

The agnostic however can pretend they are superior to BOTH theists AND atheists. From a purely ego calculation point of view, which is what's underway most of the time on philosophy forums, the agnostic position is clearly more logical, as it delivers the fantasy superiority experience much more efficiently.

Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence. — Frank Apisa

I've already been thinking about it for over 20 years. Your turn! :-)

No offense, but you've not actually addressed my claim at all, but just further fueled the Agnostic Holy War against the theist and atheist infidels. :-)

Hippyhead
130
Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about
— Frank Apisa

Agreed, much better philosophically, but seen as much worse by all those whose personal identity depends on them having an answer which is superior to somebody else's answer. So let's address that agenda, given that it tends to dominate philosophy forums.

The theist gets to pretend they are superior to atheists, and atheists get to pretend they are superior to theists. In both cases, the pretender can only position themselves above a limited number of people.

The agnostic however can pretend they are superior to BOTH theists AND atheists. From a purely ego calculation point of view, which is what's underway most of the time on philosophy forums, the agnostic position is clearly more logical, as it delivers the fantasy superiority experience much more efficiently. — Hippyhead

With a bit of reluctance which would take to long (a path too arduous to travel) to explain...

...I AGREE, Hippy.

I can't answer my own question because my question does not apply to my position on theism - UNLIKE YOU, I am not claiming to be an agnostic - and, in fact, questions your self-professed "agnosticism"; therefore, THE ONLY RELEVANT ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS YOURS, Frank, but apparently, thus far, YOU are either too frightened or too ignorant or too disingenous to answer.

Let me rephrase this QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT YOUR POSITION in a way that anyone who's not even as 'smart' as YOU could easily answer:

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.

:chin:

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen

No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent.

For one, and to keep it simple, in Christianity, Jesus existed. And so I will be happy to argue that Jesus existed if you like. — 3017amen

Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God.

I should have added that I was describing myself in the previous post, seeking fantasy superiority by the most efficient effective method!! :-) I'm still pissed that I can't claim such fantasy superiority over Frank Apisa though. What is that guy's problem anyway?? Why can't he just be nice and make himself an easy target??? Grrr...... Some people are so rude!!! :-)

Hippyhead
130
Think about what you just wrote there...especially the wording used in the last sentence.
— Frank Apisa

I've already been thinking about it for over 20 years. Your turn! :-)
— Hippyhead

I'm 84...and been considering my position for probably 60 of those years, writing op eds and letters to editors of newspapers and magazines for decades...so I understand your feelings here.

Okay, "my turn" would point out that you are suggesting on the one hand that "throwing the question out" would be a reasonable alternative for dealing with it...and on the other, that we give "critical scrutiny as the competing answers."

Competing answers to "throwing the question out?"

Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically."

No offense, but you've not actually addressed my claim at all, but just further fueled the Agnostic Holy War against the theist and atheist infidels. :-) — Hippyhead

No doubt my replies are influenced by the fact that I am convinced that the "agnostic position"...especially as I articulate my agnostic position...(I "disagree" with many supposedly agnostic positions as strongly as I "disagree" with theistic or atheistic positions)...is the best position to take on the issue. Not unreasonable, considering I suppose most people, strong atheists, weak atheists, strong agnostics, weak agnostics, theists, ignostics) are at their position because they suppose it to be the "best position" to take. (Lots of agnosticism in that paragraph.)

If I have "not actually addressed" your claim at all...that must be because I am missing the "claim' you are making. I feel I have addressed everything you've put out.

If there is a specific "claim" you want to make...make it as clearly as you can and I will give it more consideration and response.

Hey Frank, hows it going ? You still banging the drum ?

But you said the ignosticist considers God-talk incoherent, now you're suggesting it is not. So that's the first contradiction. — 3017amen
No contradiction. It is up to you to make it coherent. — EricH

Ignosticism takes the position that the sentence "God exists" is incoherent. It would be like saying "Granwtyrt grimoooqts". — EricH

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ??

Your moving the goalposts. You gotta stick with God. — EricH

Nope. One, it's incoherent according to you and two, Jesus was known to be part God.

Not sure what your point is... ?

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa I can't answer my own question because my question does not apply to my position on theism - UNLIKE YOU, I am not claiming to be an agnostic - and, in fact, questions your self-professed "agnosticism"; therefore, THE ONLY RELEVANT ANSWER TO MY QUESTION IS YOURS, Frank, but apparently, thus far, YOU are either too frightened or too ignorant or too disingenous to answer.

Let me rephrase this QUESTION TO YOU ABOUT YOUR POSITION in a way that anyone who's not even as 'smart' as YOU could easily answer:

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

You are really acting like an asshole, but even assholes deserve a response, so...

You are asking me what makes "my agnostic claim" true:

Okay...first, here again is my agnostic claim:

I do not know if gods exist or not;
I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible);
I see no reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST (that at least one god is needed to explain existence);
I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction...

...so I don't.

Now...I will question the world's foremost authority on what I know and suspect:

Q: Are you the world's foremost authority on what Frank Apisa knows, thinks, supposes, guesses, and so forth.
R: I am, indeed. I am Frank Apisa.

Q: Okay! Does Frank know if gods exist or not?
R: Not in any way. NO. Definitely he does not.

Q: Does Frank see any reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST...or that the existence of gods is impossible?
R: He does not. Not in any way. As far as Frank is concerned, it is POSSIBLE that gods , or even one god, does exist.

Q: Thank you. And does Frank see any reason to suspect that gods MUST EXIST...or that at least one god is needed to explain existence"
R: Nope. Not in any way.

Q: Great. Just two more questions. Does Frank see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction on the question of whether any gods exist or not?
R: Not a single piece of unambiguous evidence in either direction to make such a "meaningful guess."

Q: And my final question: Does Frank make such a guess anyway>
R: No...he does not.

Antidote
155
Hey Frank, hows it going ? — Antidote

Still going strong, Antidote!

tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Hello angry atheist!

Frank's Agnosticism can be summed-up in the concept/principle of Bivalence/Vagueness:

Consider the following statement in the circumstance of sorting apples on a moving belt:
This apple is red.
Upon observation, the apple is an undetermined color between yellow and red, or it is mottled both colors. Thus the color falls into neither category " red " nor " yellow ", but these are the only categories available to us as we sort the apples. We might say it is "50% red". This could be rephrased: it is 50% true that the apple is red. Therefore, P is 50% true, and 50% false. Now consider:
This apple is red and it is not-red.
In other words, P and not-P. This violates the law of noncontradiction and, by extension, bivalence.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg might help... .

Just trying to help Frank

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE. — 180 Proof

Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.

Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL

Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically." — Frank Apisa

Yes, it's been a long investigation for sure. What this long investigation has revealed is that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything. We seem to agree on this.

When thousands of years of investigation led by some of the greatest minds among us fails to reach the goal of delivering a credible answer, it seems reasonable to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. That's what I'm attempting to do.

One of the assumptions of the God debate, that nearly everyone on all sides agrees on, is that the goal of the investigation should be to deliver an answer, a knowing, a concept, a mental symbol, which accurately reflects the real world it is attempting to describe. Even agnostics agree with this goal, they just don't feel it has been reached.

What if the assumption that we should be seeking an answer is wrong? That might explain why the longest investigation in human history has failed. Maybe the answer seeking methodology which we've all just assumed to be correct should be set aside and replaced with other ways of approaching the god topic.

Before someone types "like what?" please first answer the following.

1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?

2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?

3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested?

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen

The fact that Jesus as a person may have existed is irrelevant. Billions of people have existed throughout history.

Jesus was known to be part God. — 3017amen

And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"?

If I were to say to you "Jesus was know to be part poiuyt" you would be justified in asking me for a definition of "poiuyt".

What do you mean by the word "God"? — EricH

By asking for a definition of God we are assuming that God is a "thing", some phenomena which is separate and distinct from other phenomena and thus describable with a definition.

It may be helpful to observe that the vast majority of reality, space, so infuses everything at every scale that it is hard to describe space as a phenomena separate and unique from other phenomena. So, to some degree at least, it is possible for a phenomena to be present and yet not really be definable.

Billions of people have existed throughout history. — EricH

That's correct, and history has recorded same!

And right here is the sticking point. What do you mean by the word "God"? — EricH

A God who designed consciousness.

180 Proof
1.6k
Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE.
— 180 Proof
↪Frank Apisa — 180 Proof

I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want?

Hippyhead
137
Hippy, the "god question" which is really the "What the hell is going on here" question is the entirely of philosophy. It is what ALL philosophers have considered from the moment humans became aware enough to think "philosophically."
— Frank Apisa

Yes, it's been a long investigation for sure. What this long investigation has revealed is that nobody on any side has been able to prove anything. We seem to agree on this.

When thousands of years of investigation led by some of the greatest minds among us fails to reach the goal of delivering a credible answer, it seems reasonable to question the assumptions that investigation is built upon. That's what I'm attempting to do.

One of the assumptions of the God debate, that nearly everyone on all sides agrees on, is that the goal of the investigation should be to deliver an answer, a knowing, a concept, a mental symbol, which accurately reflects the real world it is attempting to describe. Even agnostics agree with this goal, they just don't feel it has been reached.

What if the assumption that we should be seeking an answer is wrong? That might explain why the longest investigation in human history has failed. Maybe the answer seeking methodology which we've all just assumed to be correct should be set aside and replaced with other ways of approaching the god topic.

Before someone types "like what?" please first answer the following.

1) Do you think you have an answer to the God question?

2) Do you think the God debate will ever deliver an answer?

3) If you answered no to both of these questions, are you still interested? — Hippyhead

Okay, let me answer your questions.

#1: YES

#2: YES

#3: I did not answer "NO" to either question.

Ok Frank, thanks for playing. Well if you feel you have an answer, or a method of finding one, then you don't need an alternative. Go for it, and good luck.

"Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless." — Frank Apisa

Never said nor was being an ignostic defined as god is inherently always meaningless and not worthy of discussion. . . wow that strawman was easy to spot. I've said that ignosticism is basically, you don't give a definition (or one that is even the slightest coherent) then it isn't going to make sense to ask what position I take on it regarding said entities existence. Rather, until YOU give a coherent definition of god i don't have much of a reason to say I'm agnostic, atheistic, or theistic towards it because. . . what is it I'm sure I know doesn't exist/does exist/or am possessing ignorance towards.

Get out of the discussion if you think it is worthless. There are several threads in this forum where I would never contribute...or attempt to derail. I am sure that is true for many of us. Why are you here? — Frank Apisa

Because ignosticism or agnosticism (strong) are not equivalent to saying every discussion of god regardless of context is doomed to fail (we can never know a god exists so stop discussing) or is meaningless. Ambivalence or avoidance isn't baked into those definitions of ignosticism or agnosticism something which you and 3017amen really think fit to suppose.

I am not upset. I am participating in a discussion I find interesting...and wondering why someone like you is so determined to upset the discussion by calling it worthless--which you ARE doing. — Frank Apisa

Every philosophical conversation is worthless UNTIL you define your terms coherently then were on our way. Literally this whole time I've been defending a tenative position here that is equivalent to philosophy 101 in a discussion/debate/argument. . . define your terms and in a manner that both participants understand what they mean then conversation can continue.

I have "defined" my terms (for the purposes of the discussion)...but you still go through your nonsense. — Frank Apisa

I kept going in earnest it would be fine to leave it generalized but in all honesty I never saw your god definition given to me so we could discuss it then move on.

I do not care what you want to label yourself...labels are almost worthless. That is why I talk about "my" agnosticism...rather than agnosticism. Descriptors like strong atheist, weak atheist, theist, weak agnostic, or strong agnostic will NEVER work as well as actually describing your position. — Frank Apisa

Why you just described my side on the issue. . . partially. . . but some still desire labels to associate with or designate themselves while a label is a jumping off point it isn't a specific argument to be presupposed.

I do not care what you want to call yourself. If you want to describe your position on gods...do it. I have. YOU HAVEN'T. — Frank Apisa

Depends on what your definition of god is?

Hippyhead
139
Ok Frank, thanks for playing. Well if you feel you have an answer, or a method of finding one, then you don't need an alternative. Go for it, and good luck. — Hippyhead

C'mon, Hippy. Let's continue to play. (Thanks for that comment earlier. I got the message.)

I do have an answer to the god question...and I have given it several times.

Let's get off the "god question" for a second.

Consider these two questions instead:

1) Are there any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol?

2) Are there any things that exist on planet Earth that cannot be detected by humans? (I am not taking about atoms or quarks or other quanta. I am asking about things...that humans are unable to detect.)

What would your answers be?

And so, if we're not going to throw the god question out, it should at least receive as much critical scrutiny as the competing answers. — Hippyhead

Never supposed we did as ignosticism can be taken to be rather tenative dependent on properly defined terms or context. To throw out the discussion would mean holding a position that NO ONE can make sense of god even if you tried. . .which isn't what I've defined ignosticism as here.

I know. A lot of them seem like they have an axe to grind and are angry at the world. It's strange. — 3017amen

Never said I was angry more confused then frustrated because as other posters made note of, you seemed to intentionally "obscure the conversation avoiding giving definitions or even seemingly gish galloping".

The people espousing the "the question is blah, blah, blah" (meaning without merit or unreasonable or any of the other crapola you people are selling) should be ashamed of yourselves. — Frank Apisa

I'll continue to hold that position until YOU give a coherent definition of god to me. I can't discuss god simpliciter only what one thinks a god should be or defines it as. . . remember there are thousands or religions with varying perspectives on god that may not even overlap. Am I to. . . regardless of context be. . . agnostic to every god ever even though some definitely don't exist while others are defined as such that they do.

If the concept was incoherent, why would it matter if Jesus existed? I don't get it ?? — 3017amen

Until a definition is given or context, which if were to have read the rest of his post he does note that, but when a definition (coherent one) and context is given then we can move on from discussing "god" to discussing god. From "what is god?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism.

A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen

What is this god you speak of?

That's correct, and history has recorded same! — 3017amen

But how do you support that jesus is god. What was you definition of god again? This is literally the easiest then to do so you will definitely do it in your next reply for everyone to then move on.

A God who designed consciousness. — 3017amen

You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition.

You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition. — EricH

Oh okay.

God is consciousness.

Until a definition is given or context, which if were to have read the rest of his post he does note that, but when a definition (coherent one) and context is given then we can move on from discussing "god" to discussing god. From "what is go?" to "does god exist?" which as two different discussions to have debated on which isn't anymore nebulous than ignosticism. — substantivalism

Sorry, not following that one.

What is this god you speak of? — substantivalism

In Christianity, it's Jesus.

But how do you support that jesus is god. What was you definition of god again? This is literally the easiest then to do so you will definitely do it in your next reply for everyone to then move on. — substantivalism

It was recording in history that Jesus was both God and man.