[

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen

You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular

Great analysis! I'll add into the possibility that we will never know if Jesus wrote anything down himself.
Of course he could have, but the Pharisees and Sadducees might have thrown it away :snicker:

There was alot of anger even back then LOL

So I would phrase this something like "Reason is an inadequate tool for this job". — EricH

Ok, except that we don't know that. We know only that no one has proven that it is adequate. It seems reasonable to guess that reason is not adequate, but without proof one way or another, a declarative sentence seems unwarranted.

One way of phrasing this might be "There is no reason to accept any holy book as being authoritative on these largest subjects. — EricH

Yes, and for the same reason that there is no reason to accept human reason as being authoritative. No proof.

It's referring to a specific thing previously mentioned, known, or understood. Typically, 'that' is a pronoun used to identify a specific person or thing observed by the observer/speaker. — 3017amen
You have not yet mentioned - in any of your attempts at definitions - who or what this specific person or thing is.

If the specific thing is God, then your "definition" is circular — EricH

It appears you are searching for a straw man argument. What do you mean by circular?

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

Atheists do not like having agnostics around to debate. They inevitably lose. — Frank Apisa

Yep. There are alot of sore losers (atheists) here on the forum. An issue for cognitive science I know, but I think it has something to do with their ego.

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

Already done.

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

Answer: Vagueness, Bivalence, Gödel and Heisenberg.

Frank doesn't want to talk to you anymore LOL

I'll add into the possibility that we will never know if Jesus wrote anything down himself. — 3017amen

Ah, good point. Hadn't thought of that. Must add that to my sermon! You can be my apostle now if you want, you've earned it. :-)

Jesus pointed us to love, and suggested we "die to be reborn". Two ways to describe a surrender of the self.

What is the self? A symbolic abstraction, a collection of ideas.

When we die to the self, to the pile of abstractions, where does that leave our focus? On the real world.

What is the real world? A single unified phenomena.

We just became everything, which is sometimes called God.

But, point to remember, we became everything by ceasing to exist.

What is the self? A symbolic abstraction, a collection of ideas. — Hippyhead

Nice! I like that. Metaphysical abstracts are alive and well! For example, the language of mathematics that describe (not explain) the cosmos is indeed a truth, yet abstract!!!

For example, the language of mathematics that describe (not explain) the cosmos is indeed a truth, yet abstract!!! — 3017amen

A great example, thanks for that. So we are building a collection of phenomena which everyone agrees are real, but which do not meet the definition of existence.

Thus, it's possible that both theists and atheists are right.

THEISTS: God is real. Could be true.

ATHEISTS: God doesn't exist. Could also be true.

Or:

Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.

Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence.

Ahhh..like that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit, so you can show what a whiz you are in defeating thesits.

I am not a theist. And nothing was hard about what I said. I have said it a dozen times in this thread. You just haven't read the thread. — Frank Apisa

Omnipotence. . . I attempted to post a thread discussing how we could define it not that it was impossible therefore god was (not to mention that would only make omnipotent defined gods impossible not every god. . . be more careful with your language). It's an intriguing discussion where we discuss a definition that isn't circular/contradictory but also isn't tautologically true in the sense that any individual would be omnipotent. . . but you don't seem to want to indulge in that discussion now because you think I'm going to bring up the rock paradox immediately. . . that if we fail in our investigation I'll declare "forever and ever no matter what theists do they will never give a coherent definition of god".

Never ever said you were a theist if you even supposed as such. You wouldn't stop talking about how you are an agnostic which is impossible to miss. I merely prefaced don't push your definition on others and you did note that it's yours alone on many occasions.

Ignosticism, Sub, is just one more way for atheist to pretend they are not just people guessing in the opposite direction from theists. You atheists are nothing more than "believers"...but in the other direction from the "believers" who guess there are gods. You are the reverse of the coin of which the obverse is theism. — Frank Apisa

A person is only agnostic, atheistic, or theistic once they understand what god(s) are supposed to mean. It's like when people claim that you are an atheist/agnostic when you are born which I think is a misapplication of those positions. You're an agnostic with respect to god when you understand what god means then remain epistemologically ambivalent about its existence. Given agnosticism is no leaning one way or another on the god question not that you don't know nor understand the question/concept being argued for.

I can only hope you eventually grow up and see what you said there to be bullshit. — Frank Apisa

So would you claim then that something a person doesn't know about they actively in a position of ignorance towards it? Or that if they don't even understand what an entity is defined as or that it's supposed to mean anything to anyone that you could be actively epistemologically indifferent to the existence of something that may not be an entity at all? I was trying to emphasize that atheist, theist, and agnostic are internal to the debate while those positions discussing tenative perspective on the debate, ignostics perhaps, are dealing with whether we should even debate or have reason to do so.

If I recall I never insulted you and you continue to do so. . . good philosophical sportsmanship.

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. — Frank Apisa

If you wanted to make it more general then you need to add to it "I do not know if gods exist or not or if the concept possesses any coherent meaning to do so". I'm not talking about every meaning of god, as I've pointed put, you cannot be agnostic to some while you have to be atheistic/theistic to others par their definitions. Basically you need to make this a more general I don't know statement. The missing bit is that ignosticism which you could add in.

Also add in that you have to be knowledgable or understand the discussion first hand to then actively take an agnostic position.

Read the statement of my agnosticism...and tell me the part with which you disagree...and why you disagree. Stop with the "ignostic" bullshit. Stop being pedantic...start having a discussion. Be ethical. — Frank Apisa

I have now and there's nothing wrong with it within the god discussion but to meta questions regarding the coherency/definition of god you would need to preface that in together with the fact that you would have knowledge as well as an understanding of the debate. Otherwise a baby before they were born is an agnostic which seems strange to me to ascribe a position to a person who doesn't even understand the concept being played with.

In Christianity Jesus existed. — 3017amen

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus.

So are you ignoring that over 75% of philosophicsl domain's posit God's existence? — 3017amen

They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god.

Do you need support that, say, Immanuel Kant existed? Not sure what else to tell you. Jesus existed in a history book known as the Christian Bible. I don't understand what your argument is... . — 3017amen

Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about.

For the same reason you don't understand your own conscious existence. In other words, I could invent something to explain your own conscious existence but, would that really prove anything? Otherwise, just like other accounts of historical events about existing things, you can choose to believe them, or not to believe them. Not sure what the fuss is about. Maybe the foregoing will help you.

With regard to philosophical concerns, sure, that's a great question. Let's dive into it shall we? Philosophically, your argument seems to center around understanding the nature of a particular person's existence (Jesus who was known to be part God). How can one understand another person when that particular person can't even understand themselves? It's kind of like blind leading the blind, no? Philosophically, you are expecting to perform something that is not possible because to begin with, you can't tell me how you can have knowledge about the thing-in-itself. And thing-in-itself is you; your existence. Otherwise, we are simply back to whether one can have knowledge about the mind of God.

In the alternative, maybe try to explain cosmological existence for a start. For example, tell me how consciousness emerged from a warm pool of soup, a piece of wood, or from quantum mechanics. Or, what is the nature of space and time itelf viz. the big bang? That would be a great start. Explain the nature of time itself to all of us here on the forum. That, for one, would certainly enhance your credibility wouldn't it?

The main theme is: the nature of your existence and/or the thing-in-itself. I look forward to your reply! — 3017amen

Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian?

You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such.

You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend.

A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person.

Theist: God's existence is a subjective truth.
Atheist: God's non-existence is a subjective truth.

Or a third option (among many other's) could be, the concept of God is both a subjective and objective truth based upon the phenomenology of existence. — 3017amen

You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it.

Like gods, arguments for gods don't exist.

Given all your philosophical questions or issues why hold onto christianity at all and not go towards another religion or not possess any religion at all to be central to your philosophy? Why dogmatically assume christianity to be central around which your philosophy is built?

You enjoy wasting your time dont you? Lol
No amount of reasoning or patience will avail you sir, you are dealing with a troll and in Franks case, dementia. Neither are interested in actual discussion, just FYI.

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label of jesus. — substantivalism

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous?

They use the word with perhaps a coherent definition and you gave an example then yes we could go from discussing "god" to discussing god. — substantivalism

God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin:

Yes, historians have said proof and it's thusly more likely he existed than he was a mythological philosopher someone took on as a persona or had never really existed in that sense. Jesus was a character in a mythological story and you would to support that it was likely a person existed deserving of the label of Jesus as well as support the many or for you single metaphysical claim of him being created from this god you know next to nothing about. — substantivalism

Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... .

Neither do you understand your own conscious existence as you seem apt to dissolve any concreteness to your personal experiences (which don't come from yourself) making the world highly irregular to any bystanders understanding of it. Why should I think jesus actually existed and that he performed the miracles that he has been claimed to have done as well as support claims surrounding his true nature? How would you convince a historian? — substantivalism

You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry.

You are, and I'm also, composed of processes of things we call thoughts, experiences, memories, all culminating in what we call conscious/self-aware existence we name it. The thing is you cannot ever fully understand what you are or what you are made of because the true nature of all entities may not entirely be written on its sleeves. Like saying because I experience a red apple then everything that it is was nearly encapsulated by my perception of it but this may not be the case nor can you claim as such. — substantivalism

And so we may have agreement to where it is in fact true that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind?

You have no knowledge, neither do I, that these experiences come from yourself (that your solipsism creates these experiences) merely that they come outside us, that we interact with them. The words or concepts we use to describe said experiences have particular uses, meanings, and there is generally consistency in what we experience. To then make claims (such as that a historical figure existed/didn't exist) this would pragmatically/coherently have to remain consistent with other knowledge we've acquired or other experiences. To us your sort of weak sceptical ploy that why not just arbitrarily assign existence/non-existence to certain entities historically you are assuming that if we could have had experiences with them as any friend. — substantivalism

Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience?

A fictional entity such as santa claus forever remains on merchandise/our caricatures of the real world/or within the hearts or people who cosplay as the character. There is a difference between the potential one to one experience of a friend/family member/"real" person but no such luck is found with regard to fictional characters not even potentially. We could pragmatically then speculate whether a character has more in common with our daily experience of "real" people or with that of a fictional character or at least a fictionalized rendition of what was a "real" person. — substantivalism

Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional?

Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL

3017amen, the gift that just keeps on giving. or, the bunny that just keeps on going. Too bad it's small circles, and the gift toxic.

You would have to define god first. . . not indirectly but directly define it. — substantivalism

In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there.

Otherwise, as explained earlier, because only you yourself only know yourself (because you yourself exist), you have the burden of defining the true nature of yourself. Can you pass that test?

I enjoy talking about the concept of God, don't you Tim? I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy.

Given all your philosophical questions or issues why hold onto christianity at all and not go towards another religion or not possess any religion at all to be central to your philosophy? Why dogmatically assume christianity to be central around which your philosophy is built? — substantivalism

Well, that's a huge question(s). I'll just give you one reason for you to ponder. I enjoy the Revelation that comes with it.

As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No?

I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy. — 3017amen

You do not know what you're talking about. Btw, if you go back through this thread and others, you will find many questions to you that you have ignored. In as much as asking and answering questions is a part of civil discourse as practiced by adults, and you don't, then I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too.

And this has nothing to do with g/God(s) in any sense. It is instead about your failure as an interlocutor.

Not sure I'm following that, are you suggesting that all history books are fiction? — 3017amen

I noted this above. So much wrong in so few words. You do not even realize the level of your own ignorance - which failure is called stupidity. So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid!

I mean, after all, its existence is posited in over 75% of Philosophy. — 3017amenYou do not know what you're talking about — tim wood

Let's go through each of them one at a time (for simplicity I'll only include one philosopher since there are dozens more):

1. Ethics: Christian ethics
2. Metaphysics: Descartes Metaphysics (to name just only one)
3. Epistemology: George Berkeley
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Soren Kierkegaard
5. Logic: Immanuel Kant (synthetic a priori knowledge)
6. Political Philosophy: separation of church and state/In God we Trust

I'm sure I missed something, so help me out there Tim!

you go back through this thread and others, you will find many questions to you that you have ignored. I — tim wood

Really, go ahead and show me, I'll be glad to respond. The thing is, it may not be what you want to hear.

then I'm afraid all that you and yours are worth is f*** you! And barely that. And I can remove the asterisks too. — tim wood

So I shall make the effort to communicate with you at your level, so that you will understand, no questions necessary. It will seem harsh, but given your style of discussion, it is actually just right: Fuck you, stupid! — tim wood

LOL. Does that mean hiding behind ad hominem is the preferred approach to the OP's concerns about God? Or, are we back to what Einstein said about fanatical atheism?

Omnipotence. . . I attempted to post a thread discussing how we could define it not that it was impossible therefore god was (not to mention that would only make omnipotent defined gods impossible not every god. . . be more careful with your language). — substantivalism

I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.

Interesting.

Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language!

So would you claim then that something a person doesn't know about they actively in a position of ignorance towards it? Or that if they don't even understand what an entity is defined as or that it's supposed to mean anything to anyone that you could be actively epistemologically indifferent to the existence of something that may not be an entity at all? I was trying to emphasize that atheist, theist, and agnostic are internal to the debate while those positions discussing tenative perspective on the debate, ignostics perhaps, are dealing with whether we should even debate or have reason to do so. — substantivalism

I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times.

As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that.

If I recall I never insulted you and you continue to do so. . . good philosophical sportsmanship. — substantivalism

I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.

Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum.

If you wanted to make it more general then you need to add to it "I do not know if gods exist or not or if the concept possesses any coherent meaning to do so". — substantivalism

No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that.

I'm not talking about every meaning of god, as I've pointed put, you cannot be agnostic to some while you have to be atheistic/theistic to others par their definitions. — substantivalism

No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.

You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.

Here they are:

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?

Gosh Frank, they're getting unhinged. I kind of feel sorry for some of them, but hey, it's of their own doing. I think it's called volitional existence. I suppose using Christian philosophy (once again), it's really 'nothing new under the sun' as it were (Ecclesiastes/Existentialism)!!!

Have a good weekend brother!

3017amen
2.2k
↪Frank Apisa

Gosh Frank, they're getting unhinged. I kind of feel sorry for some of them, but hey, it's of their own doing. I think it's called volitional existence. I suppose using Christian philosophy (once again), it's really 'nothing new under the sun' as it were (Ecclesiastes/Existentialism)!!!

Have a good weekend brother! — 3017amen

You have a good weekend too, Amen.

Everyone...have a safe, enjoyable weekend.

There may or may not have been a human being deserving of said label as George Washington. Analogous? — 3017amen

Devoid of context, yes, but when a person talks about George Washington in the U.S. they probably are talking about the person who was the first U.S. president.

God is posited in Metaphysics, Ethics, Epistemology, Contemporary Philosophy/Existentialism, Philosophy of Religion, and even Political Philosophy. As they say, it is what it
is :chin: — 3017amen

It is what it is when they have actually defined it and aren't talking about the concept of god but about god itself. . . after having defined it.

Does that mean all historians are not really historians at all? If so, what are they? Not sure I'm following that one... . — 3017amen

What?

You would have to ask an Historian. Once again, not really following your argument....sorry. — 3017amen

Nice deflection.

And so we may have agreement to where it is tin fact rue that only you yourself know yourself. Is that a subjective truth of some kind? — 3017amen

You are aware of something you call the self. We call this experience awareness. Is it false that I call it awareness, is that subjective?

Nice! Is that another way of saying their exists unexplained phenomena associated with conscious existence? For example, an ineffable 'religious' experience? — 3017amen

Are ineffable 'religious' experiences consistent with experiences of waking experiences and are not merely our imagined caricatures of existence. Can you support that a person is having said experience and that such an experience is not the same as a mirage of water in the distance but the experience of concretely water in the distance. Can you not assume unexplained is equivalent to "you know the answer" or that we just suppose it exists without reduction/deeper ontological relations to other entities. We've both admitted partially that part of what makes up conscious awareness, experiences, don't come from within us and we have no knowledge of making ourselves so clearly the reality that either makes us up or gives rise to our experiences must allow for said conscious awareness.

Would not a "real" Historian know the difference between a fictional character and a real character from history? Otherwise, surely you're not suggesting that an old Historian who was once seen but has since died never existed and was fictional? — 3017amen

Yes, a historian would know the difference between the human character of Jesus and the mythological character of Jesus who was created by ____insert well defined answer____. Was this historian ever born. . . then he interacted with people in a way distinct from fictional characters. . . then he wasn't fictional. Or if you are not assuming this but merely questioning my outward speculation as to whether he is or isn't fictional. . . well that is unfalsifiable by definition as he has never interacted with anyone so it's indeterminate whether he ever existed at all, to me or anyone else it would be "I don't know" as the final answer to that.

As far as dogma, you would have to make your case with the authors of Philosophy itself, since it's included in the majority of same. No? — 3017amen

Not without reason to do so.

In Christianity Jesus was known to be part God and part man. That's what the history book tells us. Not sure what else to tell you there. — 3017amen

You have to prove that Jesus is part god not repeat what the bible says he was perhaps even as proof (that's circular). Also define god.

Don't be afraid of yourself Dingle. Just popping in to troll about doesn't really make your case, or does it? LOL — 3017amen

So another person is also distrustful of you argumentation strategies and disingenuous nature. That list just keeps on growing the longer this goes on.

I addressed the attributes of omniscience and omnipresence…and you reply about omnipotence.

Interesting.

Read that sentence of yours over again…and reflect on part of it being an admonition for me to be more careful with language! — Frank Apisa

I was talking about how I did try to post a meaningful discussion here about one of the common attributes given to monotheistic gods (popular in the christian tradition) but then mentioned how you would't perhaps be respectful in a discussion because you think i'm a fedora hat wearing atheist i'm assuming.

Do you think such a discussion is bullshit when apologists actually do discuss said attributes or have critical evaluations given to point out exactly where they go wrong? Cause you called it "that omniscience or omnipresent bullshit," so do you then think it's just bullshit to point that out in a discussion. . . about defining god. . . especially because it's popular to do so. . . by apologists. . .

I am saying that I do not know if gods exist or not. That is what I am saying. No need for you to attempt to reword what I have said dozens of times. — Frank Apisa

Or that god possesses any coherent meaning to disagree on its existence anyways.

As for “ignostics” what they are doing is avoiding the pitfalls of the atheistic belief system. They are atheists...but careful ones. Good. I give you guys credit for that. — Frank Apisa

You really disgustingly abhor atheists so much that you literally have forgotten what i've said numerous times that "if I was given a coherent definition of god then we can discuss its existence." This is a position. . . a meta-position on the god discussion. . . not an overarching moral/aesthetic/metaphysical/epistemological belief system just as if you are an agnostic with respect to the god discussion you could think it's a waste of time, be ambivalent towards it, or be truly open to being mindfully won over.

There is a difference here between, again, saying "I don't know what god means or is?" and "I know what a god means and I express ignorance towards whether such an ontological entity exists?".

I agree. You never have…and you are correct, I have.

Maybe not “good philosophical sportsmanship”…but adequate to an Internet discussion forum. — Frank Apisa

Gotcha, you will continue to insult me.

No I don’t. I am not an atheist trying to hide my atheism. An atheist trying to hide his/her atheism would do that. — Frank Apisa

Never said you were an atheist as an atheist is one who claims "god doesn't exist?". NOT "I don't know what a god is?". Do you even understand your or my own terms here?

No I don’t. I can simply say I guess a particular “god or god trait” is bullshit. I don’t need that label.

You ought really try to address the two questions I posed to Hippy earlier. He hasn’t taken them on.

Here they are:

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? — Frank Apisa

"Ignoticism emphasizes the general rule that any discussion presupposes that the dialogue partners have defined - explicitly or by common use of language - their terms. A sound definition requires that the terms in question are reduced to well-known terms. And that the latter terms are not contradictory.
Without these presupposition any discussion between agnostics, atheists and theists is senseless." As paraphrased from a theological post on philosophy stack exchange which again is what I mean by ignostic as well. You cannot take a truth claim then apply it to a nonsense proposition or admit that one could be given but are ignorant of which one (true or false) as this presupposes it isn't nonsense period. Until you coherently define the terms given then we could start actually discussing whether we're unsure what conclusion to give to said question (true or false) and or declare is purely false/true.

1. I don't know.
2. I don't know.

In Christianity Jesus existed — 3017amen

I thought you were making claims independent of whatever some humans believe or not? :brow:
It's not like beliefs make it so.