Antidote
155
Hey Frank, hows it going ? — Antidote

Still going strong, Antidote!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...so I don't.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Competing answers to "throwing the question out?"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...I AGREE, Hippy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oh, the narcissism.

3017amen
2.2k
Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.
— Frank Apisa

180 is a lot like his avatar. He gets upset easily. LOL — 3017amen

Atheists tend to lose their cool very easily...especially when discussing matters with an agnostic.

Oh well!

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Okay. Just checking. You're only able to repeat yourself like a dumb parrot and thereby, also like a dumb parrot, unable to explain whatever that is you're parroting. So it's reasonable, even fair, to conclude, Frank, that what you call "my agnosticism" is wholly subjective just like e.g. babytalk or glossalalia. As I've said many times: if I can't engage in informative dialectic, then I seek only to expose and not bother trying to persuade :point: Your stuffed parrot's showing, Mr. Apisa. :sweat: — 180 Proof

If it makes you comfortable to speak like that of someone discussing the subjects we are discussing...go for it. I want you to feel as comfortable as you can being yourself.

Obviously you are not able to answer your own question...and this has upset you. Just leave it be. No need to torture yourself.

Since the term was first invented, atheists have been trying to make their blind guesses that gods do not exist seem like something other than "beliefs." They have invented qualifiers...and other words to make it seem more scientific and logical to blindly guess that there are no gods than to blindly guess there is at least one.

They are laughable in that, because blind guesses that there are no gods are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one.

Allow me to repeat that: Blind guesses that there is no creating agency (are no creating agencies) to what we humans claim exists...are of no better quality than blind guesses that there is at least one creating agency. And if there are creating agencies...they are as much a part of nature as the creation we puny humans call "the universe and everything in it."

Much better if everyone simply acknowledge that we do not know how "all this" came about...and that guesses about it are fun (even a delight), but not of much use.

jorndoe
1k
There are gods for all occasions. Most people, past and present, disbelieve/d the vast majority of them or never heard of them; they never show anyway, and sure aren't shown.
That leaves vague nebulous generic broad sketchy indeterminate definitions (because there are only definitions left), which evade epistemics, often enough by design.
Most have elements of personification imposed upon them, a bit like fossilized animism (and perhaps a bit like "seeing faces in the clouds" if you will).
Epistemic evasion just means we fall back on religious faith and faith alone, incidentally something of which there are many examples, those kinds of existential claims are easy enough to come up with anyway.
Does that warrant worship? Obsession? — jorndoe

The obsession...the worship part of religion is the part that always turns me off.

Making a guess that gods were involved with how this thing we humans call "the universe" came into being (if it in fact came into being) is as good as any other guess about the question. But then supposing the gods have to be worshiped pops up...and disgusts me.

Any "god" that would want to be worshiped...IS NOT WORTH WORSHIP.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa I understand what you've written over and over ad nauseam, Frank. I'm asking a straight-forward question which you either can or can't answer (or will show why it's not a valid question): Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism?

If so, tell me/us what that is. — 180 Proof

There is MY AGNOSTICISM.

You know what it is. I've stated it several times.

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.

YOU tell ME if there is "an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of " it.

Then YOU tell ME what it is. And after you have, you might tell me why you would want to know something like that.

You are having such a difficult time understanding ignosticism and likewise probably in trying to understand meta-philosophy (another field of study) if you ever get to it. The question "does god exist?" doesn't make any sense until you define god in a coherent manner then the discussion can continue from there. This is really simple. I'm not claiming it is inherently meaningless only that until you define the term in question coherently nothing of real substance can be said on it and ignosticism in compasses that. When did I claim or give the bias that the question is always or inherently meaningless no matter what? — substantivalism

I am not having a difficult time understanding ignosticism. I have majors in economics, philosophy, and religion. Unfortunately for the kind of discussion you seem determined to have, I got my degree almost 60 years ago...so lots of the particulars are no longer at my fingertips. You will understand that if, and when, you grow up.

You are essentially coming into a discussion of theories or positions on the "gods' question...and saying, "Don't have this discussion because I think it is worthless."

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

Okay?

Stop being so upset about this "personal" attack on you or your position i've only been noting that there is another position perhaps preferable to your own. If you would define god then I could note whether i'm an atheist, theist, or agnostic (weak/strong) on it. — substantivalism

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

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

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

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

Marchesk
3.6k
↪Frank Apisa I should have specified in terms of funding and global reach. — Marchesk

I realized what you meant, Marchesk. And I was not being a wise-ass. It is worthwhile to mention what many people do not realize, that in pure numbers, we are not #1.

We are strong as steel when it comes to overall ability...and, as you noted, we are huge in terms of funding and global reach.

substantivalism
86
No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?
— Frank Apisa

What is this god you speak of? If its the universe were all theists, if its a square circle were all atheists, if it's a deistic variety by definition it's unknowable so were all strong agnostics, and you haven't given a definition to me that you personally would like to discuss so i'm an ignostic right now. Remember you cannot speak for every theist on what they mean by god only you can do that for yourself and personal investigation. Also, why wouldn't I. . . I love discussing the monotheistic god of christianity and its properties such as omnipotence which is tricky to define.

You did stay true to your word to bury me beneath you Argumentum ad populum. — substantivalism

I didn't say god...I said gods.

I said I do not know if any gods exist or not.

Neither do you.

But, you have a bias, so you want to make the question be invalid in some way.

You are acting like a kid kicking over a sand castle.

There is a discussion going on about our individual positions on the question.

I've given mine. 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.

You seem to think there is something wrong with that position...but rather than discus the issue, you are declaring the entire conversation inappropriate.

Go kick over sand castles somewhere else...and allow us to get on with what we are discussing.

substantivalism
85
Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.
— Frank Apisa

If I cannot will you bury me with an Argumentum ad populum? — substantivalism

No. I won't even respond, because I know you cannot.

No so-called philosophers before 1900 identified as ignostics.

Nobody on the planet identified as ignostic before the mid-1950's.

No one should now. It is a cop-out...not a position.

The concept that gods exist is a valid one to consider...just as the concept that there are no gods is a valid one to consider.

If you do not want to do it...why are you engaging in a thread titled the way this one is?

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

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.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.
— Frank Apisa

Most philosophers? — substantivalism

Yes, most philosophers.

Philosophers have been around for 2500 years. Name two from before 1900 who claimed they were ignostic.

But some have taken on a form of ignosticism that is similar but perhaps more extreme, non-cognitivism. It exists and has value. . . despite you saying it doesn't? — substantivalism

What are you talking about???

Where have I ever said non-cognitivism (whatever that is) does not have value or does not exist? Where have I even mentioned it...since I have no idea of what it is?

apokrisis
4.7k
. Most aircraft carriers will be totally destroyed during the first hours of any major new confrontation
— Frank Apisa

Full on nuclear war is different issue. The question here is about the global projection of power to run a world system.

And the US wouldn’t have continued to invest in supercarriers if they were as vulnerable as all that. — apokrisis

You mean the US would not do anything stupid like leave all its battleships vulnerable to attack at Pearl Harbor???

180 Proof
1.6k
Here is my agnosticism [ ... ]
— Frank Apisa
Is there an objective - more-or-other-than-subjective - correlate, or formulation, of your agnosticism? — 180 Proof

The problem with descriptors is that one almost always has to define what one means when using the descriptor.

I occasionally use the descriptor "agnostic."

When I do, what I mean 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 don't understand that...perhaps this is not the thread for you.

apokrisis
4.7k
↪Frank Apisa Navies and bases spell empires. A big army is good for beating up a geographic neighbour. Projecting power globally is about bases and carriers.

Until the UK started getting back into the game, only the US had a fleet of Nimitz and Ford class super-carriers. And the US has its global network of bases to match.

China and India are an order of magnitude behind in these terms.

The US could downsize drastically and still be a huge regional power. The real question is why would it even care about being the world policeman these days?

And the problem is also that power has shifted in ways that no-one could take its place. The thought of stepping into America’s shoes as the global cop also makes no sense if you are a China or an India.

The US experience shows that bases and carriers topple regimes but don’t build stable allies, or even reliable dictatorships. Warfare has adapted to the times and become asymmetric. Most of the world has also moved from developing to developed. Old school colonial empires can’t function anymore.

So the US certainly has the big stick military power. The flip side of this is that no one is going to rule the world - turn it into its well run colonial empire again - just by owning a big stick.

So the measures of might have changed along with the state of the world. Military power still counts. Yet forging regional communities of interest is what matters for successful statesmanship in a post-colonial, post-cold war, setting. — apokrisis

I agree with you, but my comment, "Plus the US military remains the largest in the world" only went to the question of "largest militaries"...not the most mighty.

I might also point out that the aircraft carriers (which essentially won World War II...are almost useless in a war with nuclear weapons. Most aircraft carriers will be totally destroyed during the first hours of any major new confrontation. Planes will be only marginally involved...until we get to the point where missiles have set us back in history.

Then I would wonder why there is a field of philosophy (meta-philosophy) that even discusses the primary reason to study philosophy or if it does actually say anything about reality in general, is it the the same as art? Ignosticism is the most reasonable position to take given its not indulging in the god discussion but questioning whether there is even one to be had at all. Is the definition of god that you propose viable of a coherent answer or investigation? Not the equivalent of "I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" but more "what are you talking about? I don't understand what you are remaining ignorant towards?".

Given at least that agnosticism is a statement about your knowledge towards the god debate given you already acknowledge its not art and warrants an objective answer. . . that it's not nonsense. — substantivalism

Ignosticism, in my opinion, is of no value...and seems for an evasion than a position. It certainly is not the position MOST (hardly any) of the philosophers of the last 2500 years would take.

Here is my agnosticism:

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.

I feel it has value. For those who don't, I respect their opinion.

Plus the US military remains the largest in the world. — Marchesk

China and India both have larger militaries.

EricH
186
↪Frank Apisa
Here was your #1 definition of the word "god" from several days ago. I have highlighted the important passage:

What do I mean when I use the word “god” in questions like “Do you think it more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one?”

I mean an entity of agency…something that existed BEFORE this thing we humans call the universe came into being…and which caused or helped to cause it to “come into being.”

I am NOT talking about anything “supernatural.” Anything that exists…is, by definition, a part of existence. If ghosts or spirit beings exist, but we humans cannot sense them in any way…they are part of what exists and are a part of nature.
— Frank Apisa

And here is your latest definition.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or e — EricH

Eric...not sure of what kind of game you are playing here...or why you are playing it. I see no contradictions in what I have said...here or in any other of my thousands of posts on this issue in several different fora devoted to the question of the OP.

EricH
185
↪Frank Apisa
Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?
— Frank Apisa

Sigh. I have answered that question multiple times in the affirmative. I'll repeat myself yet again. You have explicitly rejected the notion of the supernatural. When you use the word "god(s)" you are referring to some natural phenomena which - as you put it - — EricH

If you have answered that question multiple times, Eric, you've not done a very good job of it.

In any case, if you have answered it "in the affirmative" then you agree that if there are things that are "supernatural"...they are merely things that we humans do not understand...that we cannot perceive.

Supernatural is normally defined as "(of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature."

You agree we humans do not know everything about REALITY...and we certainly may not be able to understand or identify everything...

...so if there are gods, there are gods whether we humans can "understand" them or not.

Why are you not seeing that.

That's fine. Given your definition, I'm agreeing with you. We're ants - and we must be humble and acknowledge and respect our limitations.

Our only real sticking point is your use of the word "god(s)" to describe a natural phenomena, since to the rest of humanity, the definition of the word "god(s)" includes some supernatural component. — EricH

I resent you supposing I am outside "the rest of humanity."

And the preponderance of humans who have existed on this planet have NOT supposed that gods have some "supernatural" component...although even if they did, what we would be saying is that gods have some components that WE HUMANS DO NOT UNDERSTAND.

Big deal. The cosmos has that as part of its being...and we do not deny the existence of the cosmos.

Now if you could get any significant percentage of the world's population to switch over to your definition? I will tip my metaphorical hat to you - AND - I will switch to your definition. But until that time I will continue to use the word "god(s)" as the rest of humanity does. — EricH

Once again you want to define me as being uniquely outside of "the rest of humanity."

WTF?

But as a plain language person I am using the phrase "physical existence" in the same way that the average person on the street would use it. The universe as we know it is composed of atoms, sub-atomic particles that join together to form stars, planets, tables, cats on mats, people, etc — EricH

Can you at least acknowledge the possibility that we humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...MAY NOT KNOIW EVERYTHING THERE IS TO KNOW ABOUT REALITY?

Is it not POSSIBLE that there exists things that humans, the dominant species on this nondescript rock circling this nondescript sun in this nondescript galaxy...

...may not be able to perceive or sense in any way?

And can you appreciate the impact of the answer to that question on your arguments?

EricH
181
Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."
— Frank Apisa

Red herring here. While the character God in the Bible may sometimes manifest itself in the physical world - it's essence is non material. God "existed" before there was a material world. When you die, you soul goes to heaven (non physical realm) or hell (again non-physical).

You don't have to take my word for it. Ask any religious Jew, Christian, or Muslim.

And you have explicitly rejected this notion. — EricH

You are engaging in the "when the facts do not suit your argument, pretend the facts are wrong."

The facts are that the Bible says its god exists in the universe physically.

If you want to pretend it doesn't...fine with me. Pretend away.

Very jaded view there
— Frank Apisa
Jaded? Not in the slightest. Try humble. — EricH

Nah. I think "jaded" works better here.

But to pretty much every other person on this little planet of ours, the word "god(s)" refers to a hypothetical entity or entities that have no material existence. — EricH

Not so at all. Certainly not through history. The many early gods were not that at all.

Nor to Christians or Jews, for instance. You do not wrestle with "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence." Genesis 32: 24-29

Jesus is considered GOD by many Christians. He was not "a hypothetical entity...that (has) no material existence."

Yes - and a lot of time & energy wasted - and countless millions of lives destroyed. If the most intelligent people who have ever lived cannot agree on even the most rudimentary issues, then it's time to move on - we do not have the language tools nor the mental capacity to even know if we are asking the right question(s).

We are the ants. Our job is to keep our little anthill clean & well maintained.

Or put differently, A man's got to know his limitations :smile: — EricH

Very jaded view there, Eric. I hope it is not the reality for you.

Are there other sentient beings in our universe? Are there other dimensions to our existence? Do unicorns exist? Does the dominant life form on most planets have the means to fly like birds...or are most land bound? Are there any gods...or are there none? Do thoughts have a physical component?

At best you might say, "These are things that do not interest me."

To say considerations about them are wasted time...goes a bit too far for me.

EricH
179
As example, one key assumption is that a god either exists or not, one or the other. When we examine most of reality, space, we see it does not comply with such a simplistic paradigm.
— Hippyhead

The paradigm does not fail due to any aspect/property of the physical universe. To religious people, the word "god" refers to something that does not physically exist. "God" "exists" outside of the universe (I put the words in quotes to emphasize that the notion makes on sense).

Once you are "outside" the physical universe, you are also outside reason & logic. All religious conversation is a form of poetry. Poetry can be beautiful, it can influence people to do great and/or terrible things, but poetic language is useless for logical analysis.

I have no beef against religious people per se. I have good friends and relatives who are deeply religious - and I can see that it provides them with a great source of comfort and helps them structure their lives. And if all religious people choose to let others live their own lives, I would not have a problem with it.

But around the world there are countless millions of people who are convinced that the rest of the world must follow their religion - if necessary by force. I am very fortunate that I live in a time & place where these forces seem to be on the wane - but I cannot let my guard down. And - as you have correctly pointed out, atheism is not a sufficient defense. Ignosticism

- - - - - - - - - -

BTW - your analogy of Columbus giving up does not work - because Columbus was convinced that he HAD reached the Far East. — EricH

You have decided that the question "Do any gods exist or are there no gods" is an absurdity...of no value, Eric.

I have no idea of why, but it is my opinion that you are wrong. It certainly is a question that has occupied the minds of most of the most intelligent people who have ever lived on planet Earth.

"Ignosticism" seems to be a way of avoiding the question...rather than a realistic position to take on it.

And to base your decision on what some humans say about what a "god" is...makes even less sense than the question you are avoiding.

"I do not know" makes lots of sense.

"I deem the question to be not-important so let's just disregard it" makes very little sense.

At least, as I see it.

Banno
8.9k
↪Frank Apisa Not a bad question. Either. — Banno

Well played, Banno! :wink:

I had read the article earlier...and mulled over what was being said. As in so many things these days, lots of speculation that seems true to me...and lots that seems way off base. I can only hope we have not fallen completely down the mountain...and that we can regain our footing at some point.

The fact that America is seen on the world's stage the way it is today...breaks my heart.

I knew there were people throughout the world who saw only "the ugly American." But there were many who saw that side of us that was beneficial to the world.

Now...that latter group seems to have almost disappeared.

Banno
8.9k
The Unraveling of America

Apocryphal has it that there is an ancient Chinese curse: may you live in interesting times.

The United States is no longer a leader among nations.

Is there something - anything - positive in this? — Banno

Do you mean for Americans...or for the rest of the world?

↪Frank Apisa, has to do with when an adult's non-naïveté or epistemic attitude demand that they take such claims into account in their lives, has to do with dis/beliefs, that their epistemic attitude and real life are consistent. By the way, I thought there were some overlaps with your non-committal agnosticism and the existential/universal propositions, or maybe I misread. — jorndoe

What is there to misread?

Essentially, all I have said in this thread are variations of two things:

ONE:

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.

That cannot be assailed or challenged in any way. I, Frank Apisa, do not know if any gods exist or not; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods CANNOT exist; I, Frank Apisa, see no reason to suspect that gods MUST exist...and I, Frank Apisa, because I, Frank Apisa, do not see enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess...DON'T MAKE SUCH A GUESS.

TWO: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" "there are no gods" "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none"...is merely asserting a blind guess.

There is no way one can come to any of those conclusions via logic.

I challenge anyone who makes any of those assertions to show the logic via a syllogism.

jorndoe
1k
You get to the bus stop in the morning, wondering if you're late, so you ask someone already there.
In one scenario they respond "sorry, you missed it by a few minutes".
In another scenario they respond "sorry, it landed and flew off already".
Anyone with active gray matter and good sense would likely believe the former and dismiss the latter.
But, hey, given proportional and relevant evidence, you might believe that the bus is flying.
Anecdotes are both the most common and the weakest kind of evidence.
So, down here on Earth in real life, what's the difference? (@Frank Apisa? Punshhh?) — jorndoe

Not sure of your point here.

What does your scenario have to do with what I have said?

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa I hope you find that gap you're hoping to find your god in. I think when you do, it will be just for you alone. And done. Do us both a favor and don't reply. — tim wood

No hope for gods...no hope for gaps.

What I wrote is correct. You should grow up and acknowledge that ANYONE asserting "there are no gods" or "there is at least one god" or that one scenario is more likely than the other...

...is just guessing.

Deal with that. Not the evasion crap.

tim wood
4.9k
...is merely sharing a blind guess.
— Frank Apisa

And that is exactly what it is not. But you don't get that. It's that lack of discernment, with your NJ persona, that makes you unreachable. At least you have company. — tim wood

If you are asserting "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one...

...YOU ARE JUST MAKING A BLIND GUESS. You are doing the atheistic version of "Credo in unum Deum..."

Pure and simply. Almost joke-like.

Atheists want to think they are more than that, but they aren't.

In fact theists have a much better argument against the "blind guess" comment, because they can always contend that a god has "revealed" itself to them. (I can make a guess on that...and my guess is that it is pure bullshit.) Any of them who are asserting "There is a GOD" or "It is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods"...are simply making blind guesses also.

If you are asserting those things, Tim...you are just making a blind guess...and you do not have the honestly or integrity to acknowledge it.

Too bad for you.

180 Proof
1.5k
↪Frank Apisa :yawn: — 180 Proof

Yawn if you want.

What I said is so...and most of it applies to you.

So yawn away...and refuse to grow up.

At that, you will be a success.

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa Your whole argument as I understand it is that the existence of X is unknown, therefore X could be or X might not be. But many things could be substituted for X. If you like g/God(s), for example, then with equal justice and likelihood there could be anti-g/God(s), or anything else.

As it sits, then, a useless exercise of almost logic. The details matter, and that devolves to defining existence, knowledge, even likelihood and possibility. The only force left to you is a claim of belief, which I, at least, do not challenge. And you're correct, you can oink your way into the parlor if you choose, but there it's just particularly clear that you're a pig. — tim wood

That is nonsense.

My "whole argument" is exactly as stated:

Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)

When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.

But...continue to flail and lose your cool. It is entertaining.

Hippyhead
31
One side or the other almost certainly is correct.
— Frank Apisa

Oh dear, sorry, can't vote for that one. Seems much more likely to me that nobody has the question right, let alone any answer. — Hippyhead

One side is blindly guessing there are no gods.

One side is blindly guessing there is at least one god.

And you think one side is not almost certainly correct???

Think that over a bit.

tim wood
4.9k
↪Frank Apisa You confuse - conflate may be the better word - actuality with likelihood. To paraphrase someone, there's the known, the unknown, the unknowable, and that that cannot be known. You're positing the latter two as knowable and that which can be known. As to private and personal theology, you can believe what you like - and that's been acknowledged repeatedly. But like pigs and parlors and camels and tents, you want in where you do not belong. And that's a failure in your thinking. Believe what you like; is not that enough? — tim wood

Easy on the drugs, Tim. They fuck you up.

You do not get to tell me where I do not belong.

And my comment is correct.

But you don't like the fact that I call your nonsense "guesswork."

Tough.

BOTTOM LINE: Anyone asserting "there is at least one god" or "there are no gods" or "it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are none" or "it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one"...

...is merely sharing a blind guess. (It may be correct. One side or the other almost certainly is correct.)

When all of you who have not already done so finally grok that...and acknowledge it...you will have shown intellectual and ethical growth.

A good philosophy professor will not tell you what to think, but will instead feed you questions that cause you to do your own thinking. Art, and religion, can be like that. — Hippyhead

Sort of like the response to "You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make him drink."

Don't "try to make him drink." Make him thirsty!

Mostly, what we have in this thread are people saying things motivated by their guesses on the question of whether there are any gods or not.

Some guess there is at least one god...and argue based on that.

Some guess there are none...and argue based on that.

Interesting arguments.

And if one recognizes they are the product of guesswork...of no particular harm.

On issues of such enormous scale as addressed by the God concept, if you're persuaded you know the difference between fact and fiction, you haven't fully grown up yet. Instead, you've just migrated from one fantasy knowing story to another. — Hippyhead

Allow me an AMEN!

Lay off that batch of weed.