I asked:

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

You responded:

"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. Unknown to me personally though it would seem to be rather unlikely.
2. There could be but then we wouldn't know that they existed, note that this is a conceptual possibility not a metaphysical/nomological possibility until its argued for.

Okay.

That is what I would answer also...although I would have eschewed the cosmetics and simply said, "I do not know."

That also is what I would answer on the question of gods.

Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical.

It isn’t.

That "have a safe, enjoyable weekend" applies to you also. Sub.

Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical. — Frank Apisa

Obviously I can par your prescription that I sum it up rather than be worrisome about specifics. Strange you gave an example where even intuitively or in relation to known scientific definitions allows me to actually take a position regarding the application of truth/false values to the question we've been discussing as well a have it making sense to do so but merely that were unsure which to give it. If I could play devils advocate it's agnosticism about the god discussion or the god question not an admittance that it will always mean something or that it will never mean something.

Two rather different propositions:

• life and consciousness came about in the universe, consciousness can come about in the universe
• Vishnu/Yahweh installed and installs consciousness in biological lifeforms in the universe

The former is a matter of (neutral) observations, the latter is, well, a kind of (fantastic) story-telling.
We don't have exhaustive knowledge of life consciousness whatever, but we do know things thereof.
If anyone claim they can justify the latter beyond mere religious faith, then please go ahead.
@3017amen? (this would work, rather than passive-aggressive rambling) (y)
The truth of the matter has no dependency on whatever some humans happen to believe or not.

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. — substantivalism

Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that?

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. — substantivalism

Okay.. So, how did they define it?

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? — substantivalism

It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence.

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. — substantivalism

I'm not following that at all really. You may want to study William James and Maslow and others from cognitive science. They did some pretty intense studies of patients having such experiences that include ineffable phenomena. There are also studies on NDE's but that's a different subject matter all together.

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. — substantivalism

Okay, so I think from what you're saying there you agree that history is pretty accurate and Historians pretty much do a good job no?

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. — substantivalism

As I said earlier, if you can prove to me the nature of your own existence, then much more of your questions/concerns can be answered.


.

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

Discussion of Christianity on philosophy forums seems hopelessly inept. To read a philosophy forum, one would get the impression that Jesus never mentioned love. All this male ego chest thumping and intricate logic calculation etc, seems pointless.

Great. So you take no exceptions that Jesus existed. Or did I misinterpret that? — 3017amen

A human being who may have deserved the label of Jesus may have existed. Most of the story regarding said individual is polluted by tall tales so it's hard to tell where the real Jesus may be and where he isn't. . . start with the Jefferson Bible.

Okay.. So, how did they define it? — 3017amen

You'll have to give a link to their definition of god or get them on the forum personally to elaborate on their position.

It could be. But it's more than likely due to your inability to explain the nature of your own existence. — 3017amen

No one can know what these thoughts are or what gives rise to them fully and without the danger of skepticism only through an acceptance that they are just the way they are (and a pragmatic/epistemological methodology) on our relationship to them can we then begin constructing abstract relationships or developing deeper concepts.

I'm not following that at all really. You may want to study William James and Maslow and others from cognitive science. They did some pretty intense studies of patients having such experiences that include ineffable phenomena. There are also studies on NDE's but that's a different subject matter all together. — 3017amen

So wait despite all our talk about not understanding ourselves or reality as we know it you appeal to cognitive science? So you do actually follow scientific practice or do you just throw it out? I thought you were anti-materialism or anti-objectivism now were talking about whether these brains have anything to do with consciousness (as they starkly do) but you haven't exactly made this clear before.

If you are appealing to these studies then please tell me can a consciousness exist without a brain to be located within?

Okay, so I think from what you're saying there you agree that history is pretty accurate and Historians pretty much do a good job no? — 3017amen

Usually, if by "doing a good job" you mean claim with evidence (something you haven't done) that there may have been a person named Jesus that the biblical story was made around then, yes. Did he actually perform miracles or was he made by this god of yours but rather come about by conception as we all know it. . . rather unlikely if not perhaps impossible. Also not warranted by the evidence.

As I said earlier, if you can prove to me the nature of your own existence, then much more of your questions/concerns can be answered. — 3017amen

Will giving an answer to the nature of my existence change anything about what I can do right now? I can't walk through walls, usually abide by most social rules, nor control what exactly the world is doing to me (at best i'm restricted to the narrow hallways of reality and at worst i'm strapped down to view it all go by). I cannot tell you the nature of existence in the same sense that you cannot tell me the nature of yours at best the only philosophy you should hold to here is not a metaphysical but an epistemological pragmatic idealism. We cannot know what the thoughts in themselves (or what give rise to them) are truly only what they can do, what they've done, and our relationship to them (taken all rather vaguely).

Discussion of Christianity on philosophy forums seems hopelessly inept. To read a philosophy forum, one would get the impression that Jesus never mentioned love. All this male ego chest thumping and intricate logic calculation etc, seems pointless. — Hippyhead

If you want to discuss Christianity divorced from 3017amen and the metaphysical baggage that pollutes its message that sounds rather like a nice thread to start tugging at. I've also always seen what was problematic about religion and its claims were that it was to overall focused on these metaphysical issues rather than being something short of guidance for the lost or merely personal life philosophy in many cases. That's why you get atheist christianity and the Jefferson bible. I'll talk to death the occasionally intriguing or rather wrongly put metaphysical claims religions espouse but once that's all done maybe their just keep doing what they were doing without that baggage.

human being who may have deserved the label of Jesus may have existed. Most of the story regarding said individual is polluted by tall tales so it's hard to tell where the real Jesus may be and where he isn't. . . start with the Jefferson Bible. — substantivalism

Nice!

You'll have to give a link to their definition of god or get them on the forum personally to elaborate on their position. — substantivalism

We would have to defer to text books or otherwise written communication/information which I'm not sure you're convinced represents any type of authority.

No one can know what these thoughts are or what gives rise to them fully and without the danger of skepticism only through an acceptance that they are just the way they are (and a pragmatic/epistemological methodology) on our relationship to them can we then begin constructing abstract relationships or developing deeper concepts. — substantivalism

Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence?

So wait despite all our talk about not understanding ourselves or reality as we know it you appeal to cognitive science? So you do actually follow scientific practice or do you just throw it out? I thought you were anti-materialism or anti-objectivism now were talking about whether these brains have anything to do with consciousness (as they starkly do) but you haven't exactly made this clear before. — substantivalism

Sure I appeal to science for many things, including empirical data. As such, science has concluded that more or less you don't know the nature of your own existence which is what we're talking about. So until you can prove to me how you exist (the nature of your existence), then we can have a cogent discussion about someone else's existence. Otherwise we're back to learning about people from history books. Make sense?

Did he actually perform miracles or was he made by this god of yours but rather come about by conception as we all know it. . . rather unlikely if not perhaps impossible. Also not warranted by the evidence. — substantivalism

That's an important distinction that goes back to your own illogical existence. For example how does the conscious and subconscious mind work together? The infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and crashing and killing yourself, lends itself to violation of formal rules of logic (LEM) perception of two things at once. And so using our sense of logic, basically means that consciousness is an impossibility. Or said another way, consciousness itself is logically impossible.

I go back to you explaining the nature of your own existence. Did it emerge from a warm pool of soup or a piece of wood or some other means or method? Until you can do that, what's the point in trying to understand someone else's existence? It seems to be like blind leading the blind, no? Otherwise you can talk about the creation of physical matter, but how would that explain the nature of your existence?

I cannot tell you the nature of existence in the same sense that you cannot tell me the nature of yours at best the only philosophy you should hold to here is not a metaphysical but an epistemological pragmatic idealism. We cannot know what the thoughts in themselves (or what give rise to them) are truly only what they can do, what they've done, and our relationship to them (taken all rather vaguely). — substantivalism

I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery.

If you want to discuss Christianity divorced from 3017amen and the metaphysical baggage that pollutes its message that sounds rather like a nice thread to start tugging at. — substantivalism

Ok, maybe we'll do that. Could be a plan. Until then, you might keep in mind that nobody is forcing you to focus on "metaphysical baggage" that you don't find credible. If you think it would be fun to transcend the metaphysical claims, you can start transcending when ever you're ready.

Nice! — 3017amen

Okay.

We would have to defer to text books or otherwise written communication/information which I'm not sure you're convinced represents any type of authority. — 3017amen

If they have written on the subject somewhere or someone is talking about them with direct quotations then it would definitely be authoritative.

Is that supposed to explain the nature of your own existence? — 3017amen

No just an elaboration on how you couldn't really know what the nature (however this is defined) is as we cannot think of our thoughts outside ourselves.

Sure I appeal to science for many things, including empirical data. As such, science has concluded that more or less you don't know the nature of your own existence which is what we're talking about. So until you can prove to me how you exist (the nature of your existence), then we can have a cogent discussion about someone else's existence. Otherwise we're back to learning about people from history books. Make sense? — 3017amen

Somewhat, you got to admit that what ever progress we make pragmatically/scientifically ourselves/in groups lends itself definitely to discover something about reality even though we may not know every key point of it given our limited perspective (it would be highly abstracted). In the end we will still say that whether these experiences have a certain reason for their existence or find themselves solipsistically within you we still would call them or associate with them personhood when see your friend. Somewhat of the same answer to people from history books with a rather complicated connection between our personal introspection or caricatures (imagination) and other past experiences with what we called "real" people versus complete fictions (reading harry potter).

That's an important distinction that goes back to your own illogical existence. For example how does the conscious and subconscious mind work together? The infamous example of driving a car while daydreaming and crashing and killing yourself, lends itself to violation of formal rules of logic (LEM) perception of two things at once. And so using our sense of logic, basically means that consciousness is an impossibility. Or said another way, consciousness itself is logically impossible. — 3017amen

I wouldn't say it's impossible because if it was then that would mean (given my understanding of the words used here) it doesn't exist even though something clearly does. The issue here is trying to see the mind or our "body" as entirely point emphasized as you can be day dreaming while having your muscles relaxed so they just allow the car forward before it impacts something. You aren't daydreaming and not daydreaming as that would be contradictory but here you are one, not the other, and this negligence lends itself to having the hunk of metal you're within glide uninhibited towards something.

I go back to you explaining the nature of your own existence. Did it emerge from a warm pool of soup or a piece of wood or some other means or method? Until you can do that, what's the point in trying to understand someone else's existence? It seems to be like blind leading the blind, no? Otherwise you can talk about the creation of physical matter, but how would that explain the nature of your existence? — 3017amen

I get it. . . existentialism. . . your focus is not on really on the nature of what makes us up or perhaps even gives rise to us but more in what we do that is important, not letting vague metaphysical or scientifically sterilized abstractions entirely dictate who we are.

I think you've answered the, (and your own) question. Your existence is a mystery. — 3017amen

Okay. . . didn't expect this when we first met but now i've somewhat turned around.

Ok, maybe we'll do that. Could be a plan. Until then, you might keep in mind that nobody is forcing you to focus on "metaphysical baggage" that you don't find credible. If you think it would be fun to transcend the metaphysical claims, you can start transcending when ever you're ready. — Hippyhead

I wouldn't know where to start as my focus my entire life so far has been spent on discussing those claims, the methods to do so, what other metaphysical claims others have made, etc. I spend my free time constantly thinking about mathematical problems in physics and occasionally the philosophy behind.

My brother, someone who also was turned away from his religion of his parents, has gone in a rather opposite direction not forgetting our scientific advancements (he bases a good chunk of his philosophy somewhat on evolutionary intuitions) but its heavily inspired if not the same as forms of eastern philosophies, i'd always say it looked to be a close cousin to process philosophy.

Here's an abbreviated summary of the conversation:

EricH - What do you mean by the word "God"?
3017amen - A God who designed consciousness.

EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus.

EricH - What do you mean by the word that - who or what does "that" refer to?
3017amen - 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.

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

The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.

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 — 3017amen

Through a glass darkly ...

1. Ethics: Epicurus, Benedict Spinoza, Philippa Foot
2. Metaphysics: Ray Brassier
3. Epistemology: David Deutsch, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Clément Rosset
5. Logic: L. Wittgenstein, Nelson Goodman (& actualism)
6. Political Philosophy: Piotr Kropotkin, David Schweickart 

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

A Small Secular Prayer

I hope & pray that everyone involved in this discussion engages in productive and fulfilling activities in the real world. I hope and pray that you do not obsess about these conversations. I hope there is some joy and happiness in your lives. Have a good weekend. Tell your loved ones that you love them.

See you Monday?

Amen

You aren't daydreaming and not daydreaming as that would be contradictory but here you are one, not the other, and this negligence lends itself to having the hunk of metal you're within glide uninhibited towards something. — substantivalism

Think of it this way, you're driving and not driving because whichever mind was involuntary causing you to daydream took over and caused you to crash and kill yourself. In other words, you're driving and not driving at the same time because a mysterious part of you took over.

Otherwise, think about how that consciousness phenomena is logically possible?

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

Hello angry atheist! Sorry for the redundancy, were you able to understand Frank's belief in Agnosticism?

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 uncertainty principle might help... .

More glossolalia. Take your meds, Kanye.

LOL! This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys!

EricH - You're telling me something God supposedly did. That is not a definition
3017amen - God is that which designed a conscious being known as Jesus. — EricH

I'm not following that:

Definition- the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, especially of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

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

A conscious being; Jesus.

The ball is still in your court. You have not yet provided any coherent definition of the words "God", "exists", or what the phrase "God exists" means.
10h — EricH

Refer to above. In Christianity, Jesus was known as a conscious being to be part man and part God.

substantivalism
113
Obviously you cannot answer, “I don’t know…and like other atheists who hide behind the descriptor “ignostic”…you pretend your position is logical.
— Frank Apisa

Obviously I can par your prescription that I sum it up rather than be worrisome about specifics. — substantivalism

Really? Well you ought to have done so rather than merely saying you could.

Strange you gave an example where even intuitively or in relation to known scientific definitions allows me to actually regard taking a position regarding the application of truth/false values to the question with it making sense to do so but merely that were unsure which to apply. — substantivalism

That abomination of a sentence coming from someone who told me to be careful of my wording?

Oh, the humanity!

If I could play devils advocate... — substantivalism

Of course you "could." You are doing so. Why waste so many words?

...it's agnosticism about the god discussion or the god question not an admittance that it will always mean something or that it will never mean something. — substantivalism

Try that with a bit of meaning. It at least has the sound of something interesting. I'd love to know what you were unsuccessfully attempting to convey,

180 Proof
1.6k
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
— 3017amen
Through a glass darkly ...

1. Ethics: Benedict Spinoza, Philippa Foot
2. Metaphysics: Ray Brassier
3. Epistemology: David Deutsch, Nassim Nicholas Taleb
4. Contemporary Philosophy: Clément Rosset
5. Logic: Ludwig Wittgenstein, Nelson Goodman
6. Political Philosophy: David Schweickart 

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

Obsess much?

EricH
204
↪180 Proof ↪substantivalism ↪Hippyhead ↪jorndoe ↪Frank Apisa

A Small Secular Prayer

I hope & pray that everyone involved in this discussion engages in productive and fulfilling activities in the real world. I hope and pray that you do not obsess about these conversations. I hope there is some joy and happiness in your lives. Have a good weekend. Tell your loved ones that you love them.

See you Monday?

Amen — EricH

Have a great weekend, Eric.

I almost always do. I am a very lucky guy.

That's funny Frank, 180 unknowingly, just acquiesced to agnosticism. Yet another irony for the atheist (like him).

Should we take the sentiment that you promote to be agnostic theist, @3017amen?
Noticed you didn't take up the challenge, despite continuing talk about consciousness.

What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol!

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge?

Think of it this way, you're driving and not driving because whichever mind was involuntary causing you to daydream took over and caused you to crash and kill yourself. In other words, you're driving and not driving at the same time because a mysterious part of you took over.

Otherwise, think about how that consciousness phenomena is logically possible? — 3017amen

You are either actively participating in the act of driving or you are not if you are day dreaming then you are not driving. Merely the inertia of the vehicle propels the hunk of metal forward and that then impacts something.

That abomination of a sentence coming from someone who told me to be careful of my wording?

Oh, the humanity! — Frank Apisa

More insults and I fixed it. . . your what. . . 70 or so years old (I recall you saying this) and yet you seem to act more childish than me in my young age. Not so much define or clarify your terms better than it was a grammar mistake which isn't exactly what I was getting at with "be careful with the words used".

Of course you "could." You are doing so. Why waste so many words? — Frank Apisa

I have to be specific with my intentions or the sub-context.

Try that with a bit of meaning. It at least has the sound of something interesting. I'd love to know what you were unsuccessfully attempting to convey, — Frank Apisa

Can agnosticism be equivalent to "I don't know what a god is?" or is it only applicable to answering the question "I don't know if a god exists?" which, again, assumes we've defined what that collection of three letter words is to then, potentially, make perfect sense to apply a false/true truth value. I'd recommend not being petty on your future replies.

substantivalism
115
That abomination of a sentence coming from someone who told me to be careful of my wording?

Oh, the humanity!
— Frank Apisa

More insults and I fixed it. . . your what. . . 70 or so years old (I recall you saying this) and yet you seem to act more childish than me in my young age. Not so much define or clarify your terms better than it was a grammar mistake which isn't exactly what I was getting at with "be careful with the words used". — substantivalism

I turned 84 on the 9th of this month. I am not childish. I have a plan...and I am carrying it out to perfection.

By the way, using "your" when you mean "you're" is not the thing to do in a paragraph devoted to what that paragraph had as an intention.

Of course you "could." You are doing so. Why waste so many words?
— Frank Apisa

I have to be specific with my intentions or the sub-context. — substantivalism

Ahhh..."specific with (your) intentions or the sub-context."

You should be more careful with words, Sub. You are starting to sound like a person speaking the way stupid people think smart people speak.

And you are obviously not stupid...so why do that?

Try that with a bit of meaning. It at least has the sound of something interesting. I'd love to know what you were unsuccessfully attempting to convey,
— Frank Apisa
— substantivalism

Can agnosticism be equivalent to "I don't know what a god is?" or is it only applicable to answering the question "I don't know if a god exists?" which, again, assumes we've defined what that collection of three letter words is to then, potentially, make perfect sense to apply a false/true truth value. — substantivism

My agnosticism is:

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.

If you meant to ask if I could substitute "I don't know what a god is?" for "I do not know if gods exist or not"...

...ABSOLUTELY NOT.

For the purposes of this discussion I know exactly what I mean when I write that sentence. I've shared that with you.

If you want to fit whatever it is you are getting at into other facets of MY agnosticism...do it, and I'll see if I can live with it.

I'd recommend not being petty on your future replies. — substantivalism

Okay. I'll take that under advisement, but I must confess that I have not been "petty" so far. And I tend to take recommendations of that sort with a dismissive laugh.

You are either actively participating in the act of driving or you are not if you are day dreaming then you are not driving. Merely the inertia of the vehicle propels the hunk of metal forward and that then impacts something. — substantivalism

Really? Then why would a person intentionally daydream, crash and kill themselves, while driving? Surely that couldn't be the case.

In other words, tell us if consciousness itself, is logically possible? Or is its design logically impossible to explain? Or, a third option, is it a brute mystery?

I turned 84 on the 9th of this month. — Frank Apisa

Belated happy birthday, Frank.

I am not childish.

Maybe, maybe not. :sweat: It's not cool to pick on "childish" folks (except here on TPF), but ... drop that babytalk, put on your big boy's pants, sir, and finally answer like a thinking adult :point:

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

180 Proof
1.6k
I turned 84 on the 9th of this month.
— Frank Apisa
Belated happy birthday, Frank. — 180 Proof

Thank you, 180.

I am not childish.
Maybe, maybe not. — 180

I definitely am NOT childish. I am very adult.

Drop the babytalk and finally answer this question like a thinking adult, sir

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

I have answered it.

How can you claim that my claim that I do not know something can be anything but true?

I do not know if gods exist or not. I just do NOT KNOW.

I see no reason to suspect gods CANNOT EXIST (that the existence of gods is impossible).

I honestly, truthfully 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 swear to you, 180, that 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.

On my honor as a human that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess in either direction.


Now, the last part (so I make no guesses)..and you may have me on that.

Actually, occasionally I do...when pressed.

I always use the same coin to assist me in my guess. A Sacagawea $1 coin that Nancy and I use to decide picks (when we disagree) in our NFL pools. The coin is called Mr. Coin...and I always use Heads to denote a guess that there is at least one god...and Tails to denote a guess that there are none.

How can you claim that my claim that I do not know something can be anything but true? — Frank Apisa

I do not claim, or imply, that "you not knowing something" is true or false; rather I'm asking HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT YOUR CLAIMS - about what you say you "do not know" - ARE TRUE?

I do not see enough unambiguous evidence

 
Tell me/us, then, what "unambiguous evidence" looks like - what you expect to "see" that you say you do not "see" especially in arguments for or against "gods" (or theism). Tell me/us what would count as "unambiguous evidence"?

Because, so far, whatever you've "blindly guessed" "unambiguous evidence" to be, Frank, excludes ANY and ALL evidentiary arguments for or against "gods" (or theism) merely by dismissing them as "blind guesses" WITHOUT MAKING VALID COUNTER-ARGUMENTS OF YOUR OWN.

You offer nothing but subjective, anecdotal, testimonials - which is okay and your right to do so - but YOU DON'T OFFER REASONS which can be taken seriously in philosophical discussions. Thus, I've ridiculed your making nothing but "blind guesses" that positions for or against "gods" (or theism) are "blind guesses" amounts to self-refuting nonsense (i.e. babytalk). Surely you can do better than that or, as befits your seniority, Frank, honorably concede that you can't.

I always use the same coin to assist me in my guess. A Sacagawea $1 coin that Nancy and I use to decide picks (when we disagree) in our NFL pools. The coin is called Mr. Coin...

This reminds me of that Batman villain Two-Face ... Anton Chigurh from No Country For Old Men (book & film) ... or even the main conceit of The Dice Man novel by George Cockcroft. Like a lunatic or stoic fideist (e.g. Tertullian? Pascal?) :smirk: