EricH
210
↪Punshhh
Namely that consciousness is good evidence of God, that consciousness is necessary for [our] existence and that it's origin, or its presence, is not explained, or accounted for philosophically.
— Punshhh

The fact that my physical body is composed of atoms - and yet I can look at myself and say "Hey, look at me, I'm composed of atoms! And hey - by golly- so are you!". This is a mind boggling fact and a source of great wonder.

But consciousness is not necessary for existence. A rock exists and, unless you are some sort of pantheist, it has no consciousness. But regardless, that fact that we currently do not understand the source & nature of consciousness has no bearing on the "existence" of some sort of supernatural being. This line of reasoning is called "God of the gaps" — EricH

You are correct in many ways here, Eric.

BUT...the line of reasoning you are taking is called "The blind guesses of atheists."

This thing we humans call "the universe" may have been "created." And if an entity or entities "created" it...that entity or those entities deserves to be called gods.

ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS...is natural...a part of nature...a part of "what is."

The "supernatural being" nonsense is just something used by people who want to deny that any gods exist.

BUT (once again)...gods possibly exist...just as it is possible no gods exist.

"Life after death: how reason can prove that its possible"

ANYTHING that is not established as impossible...is possible.

You do not have to prove it. By definition, it is.

Aha...you have nothing to say...

...so you proudly show that nothingness to the world.

Too bad you have so little pride.

180 Proof
1.6k
(D) None of the above apply. I'm a special snowflake.
— 180 Proof
:victory:

None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to".
— Frank Apisa
:smirk: :ok:

He didn't pick D, so I'm confused.
— 3017amen
Of course he did; of course you are. Take your meds, lil troll.

↪DingoJones :wink:

You are an amateur, 180.
— Frank Apisa
Yeah, I do love philosophizing. Thanks for acknowledging that. Hoped you'd learn from my example - 'old dogs, new tricks' and all that, huh? - but I guess not. Anyway, Happy 84 again, Frank! :party: — 180 Proof

Thank you for the additional birthday greeting, 180.

Here, however, you are flailing.

Your best move would be to do another of those "my work is done here"...and leave with a flounce.

You land more blows on yourself than on your opponents.

One of the problems with humans right now...is the unwillingness to acknowledge that there are things we humans DO NOT KNOW...and may well NEVER KNOW.

We can hypothesize, or offer conjecture, or suppose, or outright guess on those things, but the ethical thing to do with things we do not know is to acknowledge that we do not know.

Another problem with humans right now...is that they tend to suppose that the only things that exist are things humans can detect in some way...to sense or otherwise perceive.

We are probably no more knowledgeable about "what is" than ants in the backyard are knowledgeable about the cosmos.

The question, "How do you know?"...should probably take a back seat to the question, "Is it even possible for any human to know?"

Humans should learn to shout their ignorance...and be proud of the acknowledgment of their ignorance if not of the ignorance itself.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa :rofl: (D) it is. Thanks for "flailing" around with me, Frank. My work is done here. — 180 Proof

You are an amateur, 180. That kind of thing might work in a forum where they discuss Area 51 in Roswell...or who really killed President Kennedy, but it is just laughable here.

I'm not too proud to say, "Thank you" for the laugh, though.

So...THANKS! :lol:

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Ah, good! I stand corrected, Frank. So if not (C), leaving (A), (B) or (D), then which is closest to your position?

(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 concern). 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.
— 180 Proof — 180 Proof

I reject C as the least likely.

I reject A, B, and D also. None are close to my position enough to be considered "closest to".

I offer instead Option E:


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.

As you can see above...180 just does not get it.

180 Proof
1.6k
(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.
— 180 Proof

No it doesn't, ...
— Frank Apisa
Now there you go, sir - finally confessing to (C) wasn't so hard after all, was it? And 'good for the soul' too. :sweat: — 180 Proof

I did not "confess" to C...I did not even hint that C was correct.

If you were not playing past your depth, you would realize the C is the last one I would choose, because I advertise MY AGNOSTISM dozens upon dozens of times in any thread where it is appropriate. FAR from considering my agnosticism "nobody's fucking business"...I want it to be EVERYBODY's business. I want everyone possible to consider it for adoption.

Anyone but a complete fool would recognize that. But as I said, you are playing way past your depth.

... but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.
Why ASSume that, Frank, when YOU REFUSE TO SHOW ME ... what makes your (positions for or against "gods" are nothing but "blind guesses") claims vis-à-vis agnosticism true? — 180

If you were not playing past your depth, you would see that I have given concise responses to your questions, but that you do not have what it takes to understand them.

So...continue to flail.

Much as I hate to acknowledge it, I am enjoying your distress.

If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.

It seems plenty clear to me.
— Frank Apisa
So ... that narrows down the options to just these two:

(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. — 180 Proof

No it doesn't, but you are so narrow-minded, I suspect there is no way you will see that you are dead wrong.

Enjoy your denial.

Right you are!

creativesoul
8.5k
I’m indifferent to the degree it doesn’t impact on my freedoms. That is the “personal” answer anyone would give who is unable to talk about a wider view.
— apokrisis

The health and safety of all Americans is not at all a concern so long as it does not impact on your(one's own) personal freedoms?

That's the mindset that is common, as you've hinted at, that is a part of the unraveling. The overvalued notions of individual freedom and liberty at the expense of the community. — creativesoul

Allow me a loud AMEN! Especially for that last sentence.

180 Proof
1.6k
↪Frank Apisa Help me to understand how you understand the veracity of your own claims. — 180 Proof

I UNDERSTAND THE VERACITY OF MY OWN CLAIMS BECAUSE I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY GODS EXIST OR NOT. AND I DO NOT WANT TO MAKE A GUESS BECAUSE I DO NOT SEE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS ON THE MATTER.

If that is not enough for you,,,talk to someone else.

It seems plenty clear to me.

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.

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.

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."

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
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?

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.

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.

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.

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?

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,

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.

3017amen
2.2k
↪Frank Apisa

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

Have a good weekend brother! — 3017amen

You have a good weekend too, Amen.

Everyone...have a safe, enjoyable weekend.

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

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

Interesting.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here they are:

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

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

What would your answers be?

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

Already done.

↪Frank Apisa He still seems angry Frank LOL — 3017amen

He does seem angry, Amen.

I suspect he is trying to bait me into saying something that gets me banned.

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

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 explained that.

You really should go to the shallow end of the pool, 180.

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

You'd be better off in the shallow end of the pool, 180.

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.
— Frank Apisa

Didn't recall you noting it in one of your replies giving a definition of god that you and I can discuss, of course remember that you do not speak for every other religious individual on the matter. — substantivalism

Read the thread. I have given several definitions (all variations of the same thought expressed here) of what I mean when I use the word "god" in these discussions.

I have not said I speak for anyone else. I am telling you what I mean. What is so difficult for you to understand about that?

And to use the words "you do not speak for every other religious individual " is an absurdity. I am NOT a religious individual... as that comment suggests.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.

— Frank Apisa

Well you just gave a definition of god and (though you haven't specified much of the specifics beyond gave rise to the universe with no other connotations on required properties) is for all intensive purposes something i'm agnostic (weakly) towards. . . so was that so hard? You specified a definition then I gave my position on it which has been the whole point of being tentatively ignostic, the discussion is void until you can actually have one with predefined terms that both parties agree on as well as understand. — substantivalism

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

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

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

That FACT bothers you folk...and you go into denial and pretense.

All i've done is be extremely pedantic about this because you can really only be ignorant (or undecided) on the existence of an entity when you know what that entity is or that you are even talking about an entity at all. Agnostic to me is that position of ignorance towards the god concept AFTER you assume it's an entity of sorts, a word, that means something to someone and you can say you don't know if it exists or not. Are you still agnostic if you don't get what the point of a discussion is with undefined terms or incoherent definitions? You could stretch the word that way so it just becomes the universal word for "I don't know" whether were talking about meta-concepts or the concepts directly but usually most i've seen also just use the word to specify they understand what god means and they don't know whether it exists. — substantivalism

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

When I think agnostic should I think of: Person who doesn't know what god is?
Or that it's a person who doesn't know if a god exists?
Clearly these are not the same.

I don't care what you think...but it would be great to think that you DO think.

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

substantivalism
103
You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer.
— Frank Apisa

That is the point of that question its incoherent to ask without prior context or further if I even substituted a word that the word in question truly mean't anything to anyone or specified a particular entity to be ignorant towards.

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW.
— Frank Apisa

Does skdfksj exist? You say "i don't know" here but that assumes it possesses a meaning to someone its just hidden behind the text. You are assuming there is meaning there to then attribute that word to something in the real world to then be ignorant about. When you say "I don't know" there is a difference between "I don't understand what is going on" and "the entity that is being stated here i'm personally unsure if it exists". — substantivalism

I have tried to figure out a way to say this nicely, but I really could not.

You are full of shit, Sub.

I've answered the question of what I mean by "god"...SEVERAL TIMES.

Let me give it one more shot...although I suspect you realize you are full of shit, and are merely yelling, "Look, a squirrel" as often and loudly as possible.

When I speak of a god, I mean, "An entity that created or caused to be created what we humans now consider 'the Universe.'"

I can give you the longer version if you need it...but you shouldn't.

We both know what I mean when I say "a god"...and we both know what you mean when you say "define."

But you are lost here...and all you can do is spin the subject so that you do not have to acknowledge you have failed.

I truly am sorry about that. I wish things could be different. I'll continue to reply, hoping you finally develop what is needed to make the acknowledgment.

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me.
— Frank Apisa

There you go. A distinction between ignorance on the topic of god versus ignorance on the existence of said entity which to me are two different things thus the term i'm using. One is a meta-analysis the other merely a surface level analysis. — substantivalism

You asked "Does 'it' exist?"

I asked you what you meant by "it."

There was no predicate for the "it."

Still no answer.

I posited, "A god?"

And then said what I have said a dozen times already in this thread...I DO NOT KNOW.

Now you are serving up a word salad that has nothing to do with the question or my answer.

I'll give you this: All the words are English.

Not sure what your problem is...but if you ever get around to actually discussing the topic at hand, I'm sure we can have fun.

substantivalism
99
Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
— Frank Apisa

Coherent - Logical and consistent.
Definition - The meaning/representation intended by a word in relation to other concepts/ontological entities. Also can be a prescription regarding what people think the word should be mean't to mean versus description based definitions which describe how people generally have used the word to mean.

You know what i'll ask you question then. So does it exist? — substantivalism

Does what exist?

A god?

Beats the hell out of me.

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."
— Frank Apisa

To define a word is to specify what in reality that word represents or the meaning attached to it.

Note a definition is either descriptive or prescriptive about the meaning of a word. There is a difference between what a word is meant to be as represented in a dictionary use wise versus how people use it which can be person specific.

To be coherent is to both be understandable to us but also not be inherently contradictory. A square circle is a popular example or a married bachelor which are contradictory. Also something like the "color of existence" which according to definitions of those terms doesn't really give a coherent understanding as the concept of existence doesn't give off radiation nor interacts with luminal radiation so it cannot be colored. — substantivalism

Thanks for that.

Now, if it is not too much trouble, please give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."

3017amen
2.2k
I called in the world's foremost expert on Frank Apisa...and he corroborated everything I said.

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want?
— Frank Apisa

Awesome. And of course, only you know you!!!!

180 must be doing either a spin on that one, or he's drinking his frustrations away LOL

This is more fun than a barrel of monkeys! — 3017amen

It is, indeed, Amen.

Few things I enjoy more than discussions with atheists...or atheists who describe themselves with some other word.

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

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

First give me a coherent definition of both "coherent" and "definition."

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

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

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

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

Consider these two questions instead:

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

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

What would your answers be?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Okay, let me answer your questions.

#1: YES

#2: YES

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

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

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

Everything I said was ABSOLUTELY TRUE.

What more do you want?