180 Proof
1.6k
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? — 180 Proof

What are you saying, 180?

I KNOW THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY GODS OR NOT?

Of course that is true.

I do not know if there are any sentient beings on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol.

I do not know if there will be an eruption of a volcano in any of the 48 contiguous mainland states during 2021.

I do not not know many things...and I know that I do not know them.


 

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"? — 180

If a message were received by every media outlet in the world tomorrow that said, "I am GOD and to prove I exist I will remove the planet Saturn from your Solar system at 2:00 pm Greenwich Time on September 18th, and return it to its place in the system exactly one year later...

...and at 2:00 pm Greenwich Time on September 18th the planet Saturn disappears from our Solar system and returns to its place one year later...

...I would consider that pretty unambiguous evidence.

There is absolutely NO unambiguous evidence I would accept that there are no gods...because there is no unambiguous evidence that exists of that. (If you can think of an example of unambiguous evidence that no gods exist...please offer it.)

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. — 180

You seem to be very angry and annoyed that I do not know if any gods exist or not. Not sure what that is about...but, you are free to be as angry and annoyed as you want.

In the meantime, if you have some unambiguous evidence that there is at least one god...or some unambiguous evidence that there are no gods...

...present it.

I have not heard a single piece of unambiguous evidence in either direction...here or anywhere else during the last 70 years.

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. — 180

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

If that is not enough for you...ignore me.

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:

Does it?

Okay.

Anything else?

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. — Frank Apisa

Glad that plan includes occasionally insulting me.

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. — Frank Apisa

More grammar and not addressing my position.

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

More grammar and not addressing my position but thank you again.

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? — Frank Apisa

Clearly I missed that. . . and more childish insults from the "adult" of the discussion. If I trip and ask for a hand will you spit in my face or actually help me (this is rhetorical)?

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 — Frank Apisa

Okay, so are you admitting they are different claims requiring different positions? As well as the fact that agnosticism cannot cover what ignosticism is mean't too with the first question which must come before the second?

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. — Frank Apisa

Again, Ignosticism is an ignorance towards the concept of god and the question "what is a god?" which is a more general "I don't know" than your agnosticism which admits or assumes there is already a coherent meaning to the word "god" in every situation involving the term. One is a meta-perspective and other a perspective residing directly in the discussion with the terms already given or understood. It would be as easy as adding a pre-statement of indeterminacy regarding whether god is a coherently defined entity and if it's a specified entity then you can take your middle way position on whether it exists or not.

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. — Frank Apisa

So then i'll wait for you to break this "promise".

Really? Then why would a person intentionally daydream, crash and kill themselves, while driving? Surely that couldn't be the case. — 3017amen

Do you intentionally beat your heart or breath all the time? No, occasionally you forget and those life preserving activities are carried out by parts of the brain that you are not directly aware of. If your brain is devoid of oxygen or sleep you do go out of consciousness or perhaps hallucinate resulting in the exact same situation, a crash. If reality as it's interacts with you (isn't created by you) then this begs the question that what gives rise to you against what ever will of yours (don't think you have the perspective of choosing to be born) is occasionally subservient to.

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? — 3017amen

Philosophically, as i've explained before, anything detected by direct experience would be a brute mystery in that you cannot know the thing-in-of-itself. You can understand however the things outward behavior/nature that is directly possible to assess and therefore also understand strong relationships between these things. Such as lack of sleep leads to momentary unconsciousness or lucid dreaming which results in not applying breaking/steering when it would be of utmost importance to avoid a crash, where all the terms used apply to those things and not the thing-in-of-itself.

There's no argument for or against God, that's why Christianity has thrived for two thousand years. It's like I'm rubber and you're glue, except everyone's both rubber and glue. Also a lot of killing and propaganda in the whatever centuries.

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

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... .

This apple is red. — 3017amen

So it exactly some wavelength of light that is red and not a blending of different wave lengths of light that perceptionally (similar to a camera) from long distances the human eye cannot distinguish.

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. — 3017amen

There is a difference between "this is the exact collection of visible light this apple gives off" and "this is what my visible apparatus (eyes) can make out at a certain distance from said apple after having interacted with said light". Recall that our eyes don't have infinitely precise number of pixels picture wise and so from any collection of colors some distance away we would think one thing but get closer (a different state of affairs) then more pixels of our eyes can mark the difference. Or you are merely pointing out the limited applicability of human language as I can just call this color which seems to be a mixture of colors (gives similar sensations) something new so it isn't 50% red and 50% not red but 100% ____insert word of choice____. It's similar to a Sorites problem such as where does the mountain end and the valley begin which to me is largely a fault of the vagueness of human words/definitions but doesn't immediately give clear evidence that the world is actually indeterminate/vague metaphysically. The vagueness of our language/concepts is different from the inherent vagueness of the things-in-of-themselves.

If the apple was from a certain distance away (all else being equal) both red and not-red at the same time then it would violate classical logic. To perform your experiment this would involve changing the state of affairs so we were actually seeing more clearly details that were inaccessible to us before (in the previous location or spot) therefore we could not make such a conclusion.

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... . — 3017amen

Well quantum indeterminacy is a particular part of a few interpretations of quantum mechanics so you'll need to be further specific.

Or you are merely pointing out the limited applicability of human language — substantivalism

Sure (in our context) that would speak to the ineffable ; one having a religious experience.

The vagueness of our language/concepts is different from the inherent vagueness of the things-in-of-themselves. — substantivalism

That's correct. We don't understand things in themselves, much like the mystery associated with the nature of our conscious existence.

Likewise, dialectic reasoning would also violate similar laws of non-contradiction (Aristotle). Being and becoming, actual vs potential, pretty much anything in nature, etc. are outside of the many rules of logic (either/or v. both/and) which speaks to natural phenomenon and Being (living life). Some objects can be potentially F and potentially non F. Consider the exchange: Were you pleased? Well I was and I wasn't.

Or in the case of driving a car while daydreaming, you were essentially driving and not driving. And so if we cannot use logic to adequately explain our own existence, how can the atheist (in our discussion) make an accurate judgement about or explain the existence of, another Being or object? Is it logically possible?

the apple was from a certain distance away (all else being equal) both red and not-red at the same time then it would violate classical logic. To perform your experiment this would involve changing the state of affairs so we were actually seeing more clearly details that were inaccessible to us before (in the previous location or spot) therefore we could not make such a conclusion — substantivalism

Agreed. Similarly, consider a spinning ball that appears gray. Say we were never able to stop the ball from spinning, so we assume that it's gray. Then somehow the ball falls to the ground and stops spinning. Upon further inspection half of the ball was actually black and the other half was white. But if the ball never stops spinning we wouldn't know the true color or nature of the thing-in-itself. Phenomenology and Being is much like the spinning ball that never stops. In other words, living life is not confined to all the rules of logic.

Well quantum indeterminacy is a particular part of a few interpretations of quantum mechanics so you'll need to be further specific. — substantivalism

Heisenberg uncertainty principle and Godel's incompleteness theorem both had implications of indeterminacy in nature. The liar's paradox (unresolved paradox/self reference) is the classic example.

And so the question remains, using logic, how can the atheist claim God does not exist? And/or perhaps more importantly for some, in Christianity, how can the atheist claim that Jesus did not exist?

Sure (in our context) that would speak to the ineffable ; one having a religious experience. — 3017amen

Not really the same as the vagueness of human language (not having precisely defined terms to map onto the characteristics of nature) is what results in bewilderment not the object or thing itself.

That's correct. We don't understand things in themselves, much like the mystery associated with the nature of our conscious existence. — 3017amen

Again, yes, but that doesn't and never really should entirely matter. I talked how we cannot know the things-in-of-themselves with regards to their true entire natures but this is second in importance or relevance to how we actually see reality behave with itself. If you recall (i'm paraphrasing my limited knowledge on this) Hume was rather famously skeptical that there was this sort of casual omph that philosophers or early scientists had suspected was the case and there is a long difficult history of defining casual interactions which would in the end not exactly differ from what would observe in reality. Regardless of whether there are truly casual relationships in the world we can understand a lot purely from coincidental ones as simple as "if A, then B follows". Nothing needs to be said about whether this always happens or that we have grasped entirely all the reasons required for this to specifically take place (or that we could access said reasons). All that matters is that this relationship obtains and while we could continue to find out in what situations (restricting ourselves to our immediate senses) if we happened to find that it generally applied then we could extend inductively to cover other situations.

Or in the case of driving a car while daydreaming, you were essentially driving and not driving. — 3017amen

That depends on what you define driving as and driving for me would mean being consciously aware or my surrounding as well as the muscles using to steer/brake/speed up.

And so the question remains, using logic, how can the atheist claim God does not exist? And/or perhaps more importantly for some, in Christianity, how can the atheist claim that Jesus did not exist? — 3017amen

Well depends first on how you define atheist and it seems you've taken a popular trichotomy of atheist/theist/agnostic (weak or strong) in which we fore go specifics about belief assessments versus knowledge.

I still fail to see how your vagueness opens up a pandoras box of just believing what ever it's that we can. Why wouldn't we match or analyze these claims to a preexisting ontology, epistemologies (pragmatic or idealist), beliefs, or an understanding of the terms involved. Like I said before, to claim you met a person (not a hallucination or fictional character) is a specific potential or actual experience that generally we understand what that is and name that to be the "real" person. To claim Jesus did exist or possessed any of the features he did would require convincing me or others that there was such a potentially "real" personal experience to be had. It does seem muddy as you would think that perhaps you could convince someone into believing a certain fictional character was just as "real" but that sort of skeptical worry is intriguing but not something I can see you or me convince any of the general public to take in full heartedly. . . every philosophy no matter how strange is enslaved to naive realism.

substantivalism
118
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.
— Frank Apisa

Glad that plan includes occasionally insulting me.[/quote[

I'm glad you are glad it does...because the plan definitely does. In fact, it is essential to the plan.
— substantivalism

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.
— Frank Apisa

More grammar and not addressing my position. — Sub

You were talking about grammar...so it was appropriate.

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

More grammar and not addressing my position but thank you again. — Sub

You are welcome. (What was the "again" for in that sentence?)

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?
— Frank Apisa

Clearly I missed that. . . and more childish insults from the "adult" of the discussion. If I trip and ask for a hand will you spit in my face or actually help me (this is rhetorical)? — sub

Plan working like a charm.

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
— Frank Apisa

Okay, so are you admitting they are different claims requiring different positions? As well as the fact that agnosticism cannot cover what ignosticism is mean't too with the first question which must come before the second? — Sub

Admitting??? You meant acknowledging, right?

Ignosticism is meant to cover up atheism, because the person using ignosticism realizes that atheism is bullshit.

Argue with an atheist on the Internet...and most of what you get will be discussions of what various descriptors mean.

My agnosticism is defined carefully. Here it is again:

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.

It is not intended to deal with ignosticism OR atheism. It is merely meant to tell people what I, Frank Apisa, means when I use the descriptor "agnoticism."

In my opinion, "ignosticism" is for people without the guts to take an agnostic position...so I normally do not give them much attention. I'm making an exception in your case.



You quoted me writing: "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."

Waiting for you to do that.

Again, Ignosticism is an ignorance towards the concept of god and the question "what is a god?" which is a more general "I don't know" than your agnosticism which admits or assumes there is already a coherent meaning to the word "god" in every situation involving the term. One is a meta-perspective and other a perspective residing directly in the discussion with the terms already given or understood. It would be as easy as adding a pre-statement of indeterminacy regarding whether god is a coherently defined entity and if it's a specified entity then you can take your middle way position on whether it exists or not. — sub

We have a difference of opinion on what ignosticism is. I think it is a word people who think there are no gods use because they are too cowardly to use agnostic to indicate the degree of their doubt.

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.


So then i'll wait for you to break this "promise". — Sub

Sounds good with me, but I will not break that promise. In fact, I already have dismissed it with a laugh. I'm just continuing to implement the plan.

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've answered this question. Not sure why you are still asking it, but I suspect it has to do with the idea I tried to convey with my, "You should be playing in the shallow end of the pool."

I've answered this question. — Frank Apisa

You haven't answered the specific, straight-forward, question I've asked:

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

If you had, Frank, then it would be CLEAR to all of us what makes 'your agnosticism' true (i.e. corroborable evidence, sound arguments, etc) and therefore intelligible & compelling. My critical observations stand unrefuted by you (or your idiot wingman 3017amen) e.g. https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443305

:victory: :sweat:

180 keeps asking me the same question over and over again...and I have answered it a half-dozen times. All he does is to ask it again.

Can any of you explain to me what he is asking with, "Given that (your) "agnosticism" is A TRUTH-CLAIM, tell me/us what makes (your) "agnosticism" TRUE?"

I honestly think I have answered what I suppose the question to be...but if I am misinterpreting the question, please help inform me and I will give it a different answer.

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

Have you, could you, ask him to put your truth claim in his own words? What is he hearing you claim?

If you can clarify what exactly it is that he's challenging, then you can defend that, or correct his misunderstanding of your position (if that is the case).

Or, you could perhaps use agnosticism as a springboard out of the God debate, and then leave the endlessly repetitive us vs. them squabbling behind. If the "does God exist" question is fatally flawed, there's no point to the theist vs. atheist vs. agnostic squabbling other than as an entertaining nerd ego circle jerk. :-)

@Frank Apisa You are saying you dont have enough ambiguous evidence to decide either way on this question,and that is true according to you personally. And I dont see a problem with that. If you say that nobody can make a judgement either way I disagree with that. I think 180 is disputing your reason that nobody can make a judgement either way,although the dialogue has become pedantic repetitive and personal now. Standards for proof can also be used disingenously by posters.Certain materialist atheists seem to get very anxious over and spiritual talk. This thread Is 30 pages and no mutual understanding!

Or if you like, quantum indeterminacy and/or Gödel and Heisenberg uncertainty principle might help... — 3017amen

Utter nonsense, and English as a second language. Is anyone enjoying this thread? Learning anything from it or getting anything out of it? If not, Then. Just. Stop. Posting. Here. (You can do it!) Because this thread (imo) became toxic many pages ago.

There are a lot of ways to parse the human condition in this context. For example, one part of the logical analysis would be to distinguish between an objective truth and a subjective truth.

If it is true that only you yourself know yourself, and that your truth is yours alone, I strongly suggest there would be no amount of logic that could change that. 180's truth is his truth just like Frank's truth is his truth.

For some reason 180 doesn't understand that. He seems upset that Frank does not share his belief system, presumably from some subset of logic that is not germane to the human condition.

@3017amen I think a lot of people do not understand that all truths are subjective and inter subjective. The word objective is a much abused word and is really a nothing word. A word used to control and shut down ideas and dialogue. And the concept god Is used in differing ways,literal metaphorical or conceptual.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive.

I think a lot of people do not understand that all truths are subjective and inter subjective. The word objective is a much abused word and is really a nothing word. A word used to control and shut down ideas and dialogue. And the concept god Is used in differing ways,literal metaphorical or conceptual.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive. — Asif

The views expressed in the above post are not necessarily the views of the above post. Except the last clause.

think a lot of people do not understand that all truths are subjective and inter subjective. The word objective is a much abused word and is really a nothing word. A word used to control and shut down ideas and dialogue. And the concept god Is used in differing ways,literal metaphorical or conceptual.
Truth is Description. Some descriptions are better than others. But descriptions should be based on lived reality not the formal logic/biases of academic philosophy or academic science. Life is eminently obviously Spiritual and debating endlessly especially when there are entrenched positions is not productive. — Asif

No exceptions taken!

Since the concept of God itself is so broad, another way of wondering about such causation could be to parse the meaning of Truth.

@tim wood Speak English please.

@3017amen Yep. It would be nice if folks actually took theists or spiritual people on their merits rather than strawmanning. A lot of good discussions could be had if folks didn't go into shock and all defensive when they find a theist who is articulate and has some good ideas and contributions. And I speak as a non theist.

What would give you that impression? I'm a Christian Existentialist and proud of it lol! — 3017amen

Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not?

I'm always up for a challenge what's the challenge? — 3017amen

^{(Memory loss? Short attention span? Scatterbrain? ...?)}
Linked right in the comment, you can't have missed it: https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/443074

Help me to understand how you understand the veracity of your own claims. Choose ONE of the following that you agree with most:

(A) My agnosticism is based on objective, corroborable, evidence and is true. Here is the sound argument ...

(B) My agnosticism is based on subjective insights and is true for me (as far as I'm concerned). Countless times already I've shared my insight that every position taken for or again "gods" is nothing but a "blind guess".

(C) My agnosticism is nobody's fucking business - it works for me - so just forget I even brought it up, because you don't want to understand me or you can't.

(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.

All along I've given you the benefit of the doubt, Frank, that (A) most applies to your agnostic position. Correct me please or confirm that assunption. :point:

Self-reference has teeth that bite. If you say "all truths.., " then does that apply to your statement? E.g., "I always lie." Do I?

And you do not use the quote function. Two consequences are that the person you are replying to receives no notice that you have replied, and the post you're replying to can be hard to identify or find.

Here is that word "objective" again!!!
Is science or philosophy objective? Truths independent of the observor???? Well who verifies that?
Obviously the scientist must have a view from nowhere. The god eye view! Such hypocrisy and double standards by the hyper anxious.

Seems like you were championing agnosticism. I guess not? — jorndoe

I've been a Christian Existentialist for a long time. Thanks.

Yep. It would be nice if folks actually took theists or spiritual people on their merits rather than strawmanning. A lot of good discussions could be had if folks didn't go into shock and all defensive when they find a theist who is articulate and has some good ideas and contributions. And I speak as a non theist. — Asif

Well said. Yet again, in Christianity itself, that is nothing new under the sun (Ecclesiastes/existentialism).

@tim wood Your bite is that of a kitten. Amateur academic philosophy that deals with so called paradoxes
and such like are for pendants and appealists to authority.
All truths are descriptions. Refute that timmy. :cool:

Your answer to 180 should be your belief in Agnosticism; it is both an objective and subjective truth (based on his options given).

Just trying to help. Approach it from that perspective and we could have an intellectually lucid and cordial discussion.

Asif
223
@Frank Apisa You are saying you dont have enough ambiguous evidence to decide either way on this question,and that is true according to you personally. And I dont see a problem with that. If you say that nobody can make a judgement either way I disagree with that. I think 180 is disputing your reason that nobody can make a judgement either way,although the dialogue has become pedantic repetitive and personal now. Standards for proof can also be used disingenously by posters.Certain materialist atheists seem to get very anxious over and spiritual talk. This thread Is 30 pages and no mutual understanding! — Asif

Thank you, Asif.

At no point anywhere in this thread or any other thread in the dozen forums where I participate have I EVER suggested that nobody can make a judgement either way. If someone wants to make a judgement that he/she has enough unambiguous evidence to go one way or the other...that is up to them. We can discuss the "unambiguous evidence" if they want.

But I am defending ONLY MY agnosticism...and I am saying that I do not see enough unambiguous evidence to may a meaningful guess. And 180 just keeps asking me the same question...which I do not understand.