Atheism

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

The existence of gods MAY be unknowable. That does not mean the same thing as "the existence of gods is unknowable."

Of course it does. There is an infinite regress.

Thank you for stressing the "may" on behalf of those who haven't the reading skills to notice it ordinarily.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

It is impossible to count creatures that you can't access because they live in a parallel universe... even if you'd find a way to access, say, ONE parallel universe where some gods live, how do you know that there isn't another divine universe somewhere else, and another, and another?.... Unless we reach universal knowledge, and we'll cross that bridge if we come to it, but until then there's no counting of the gods. And therefore, they don't count.

As I said, any god who wants to matter may stand forth and be counted.

Quote:

Why didn’t you just say that when I wrote it?

I did.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

It is impossible to count creatures that you can't access because they live in a parallel universe... even if you'd find a way to access, say, ONE parallel universe where some gods live, how do you know that there isn't another divine universe somewhere else, and another, and another?.... Unless we reach universal knowledge, and we'll cross that bridge if we come to it, but until then there's no counting of the gods. And therefore, they don't count.

BOTTOM LINE...which you apparently refuse to see...is that we are discussing whether or not there are gods...whether or not they "count" or can be counted.

I do not know if there are any gods.

Do you?

Quote:

As I said, any god who wants to matter may stand forth and be counted.

Fine. And I agree with that.

But I do not know if any gods exist...that can stand forth and be counted...or not.

Do you?

Quote:

Quote:
Why didn’t you just say that when I wrote it?

I did.

No...you did not. You most assuredly did not.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

BOTTOM LINE...which you apparently refuse to see...is that we are discussing whether or not there are gods...whether or not they "count" or can be counted.

We are discussing whether we KNOW anything about gods. We agree that we don't. You for some untold reason, me because I define 1) knowledge as empirical, based on observable phenomenon, and 2) gods as supernatural and hence potentially hidden, unobservable. The two domains defined in 1 and 2 don't seem to overlap well.

Quote:

No...you did not. You most assuredly did not.

I did. I said the whole domain of metaphysics (which includes gods in case you don't know) is unknowable empirically.

3 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I do not know if there are any gods.

Neither does anybody else. But most folk manage to avoid continually alerting others to the fact because not only is it a bar to self-improvement but it drives people to seek alternative company.

Some development is possible if Olivier's point about the effect of a God entering into consideration was to be pursued.

No development can arise from not knowing something. Unless it might be the capacity of increasing and rising scornfulness for anybody who takes a different view.

My view is that there are no gods, or God, because the concept cannot be defined and it is impossible to have an opinion about something with no meaning or with no chance of ever having any.

Apisa has to give the concept meaning in order to take a view on it. And he ends up allowing that there may be a God and he has no idea what it is.

The God that enters people's lives and influences their behaviour is real enough. It would be hard to make a case that that God's existence is in doubt unless the last 2000 years were no more than a snake shedding its skin.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Look Olivier--you will never make sense of Apisa until you realise that his purpose is to undermine the Church because it preaches to the world that some of his behaviour patterns, past, present and future, are disreputable and anti-social.

He ought to be arguing that they are not in the least disreputable or anti-social and are the coming thing. And that they are necessarily so in order to save our culture from the cesspit of the Vatican and all its works.

He hasn't the nerve for that though. And plenty have.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
BOTTOM LINE...which you apparently refuse to see...is that we are discussing whether or not there are gods...whether or not they "count" or can be counted.

We are discussing whether we KNOW anything about gods. We agree that we don't. You for some untold reason, me because I define 1) knowledge as empirical, based on observable phenomenon, and 2) gods as supernatural and hence potentially hidden, unobservable. The two domains defined in 1 and 2 don't seem to overlap well.

I have been absolutely clear that I have been discussing whether or not there are gods. You have been discussing that also…but rather than simply say that you do not know whether there are gods or not…you are attempting to change the dynamics of the discussion.

But don't get me wrong, I can understand why you want to change things...because you are apparently unable to deal with what we were first discussing.

Since I have made it abundantly clear that I do not know if there are any gods...I cannot possibly know anything about them.

As for you defining knowledge as based on observable phenomena (not phenomenon…well, you CAN make a logical comment about something you cannot observe.

“I do not know if there are any living beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol”…is totally appropriate. No need to observe to make that comment.

Quote:

Quote:
No...you did not. You most assuredly did not.

I did. I said the whole domain of metaphysics (which includes gods in case you don't know) is unknowable empirically.

No…you most assuredly did not.

Here are the links:

At http://able2know.org/topic/141106-508#post-5660183

…in answer to your question, What do you do with it? I replied:

That's a different topic though.

It's a well established fact that metaphysical ideas cannot be tested and (in)validated. But metaphysics have little to do with reality.

That is NOT agreeing with what I said.

Go to this link and read the words, “Fine. And I agree with that.”

That…is what an agreement looks like, Olivier.

But I doubt you will acknowledge that your dismissal of my comment is not…and you will continue with the farce.

Do it.

I’ll play along by showing that you did not.

2 Replies

This thread has become tiresome without a troll invasion.
Mr. Green

1 Reply

@spendius,

Frank is, as usual, happy to bottom-feed on the most obvious tautologies. He is saying in essence: What is defined as beyond our empirical knowledge (e.g. gods)... cannot be known empirically. No ****, Sherlock!

The day he finds the courage to come out of the tautologic woodlot, he will start to matter perhaps.

2 Replies

@neologist,

buncha fuckheads

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Frank is, as usual, happy to bottom-feed on the most obvious tautologies. He is saying in essence: What is defined as beyond our empirical knowledge (e.g. gods)... cannot be known empirically. No ****, Sherlock!

The day he finds the courage to come out of the tautologic woodlot, he will start to matter perhaps.

I have acknowledged that I do not know if gods exist.

You are still trying to beat around the bush.

Stop "defining" things in ways that will support your arguments...solely for the purpose of supporting your arguments.

It is important that as many people as possible acknowledge that they do not know...as I have mentioned...and as you recently, not immediately, agreed.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

It's not so much that he's,

Quote:

happy to bottom-feed on the most obvious tautologies.

His problem is the repetition of bull shyt that he thinks nobody else knows about.

He insults everybody about "not knowing, is naive, or don't understand what he's saying." It's all our fault.

Since most countries spies on everybody else, it's okay for the US to spy against its own citizens and our allies on our nickel. The US Constitution and all sovereign country's laws be damned.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

you CAN make a logical comment about something you cannot observe.

“I do not know if there are any living beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol”…is totally appropriate. No need to observe to make that comment.

[emphasis added]
Literally, this is a comment about what you KNOW, and you can "observe" what you know - it's inside your head, not lightyears away.

The rest of your post is at the same level of confusion between 2 different levels: the thing in itself, and our knowledge of this thing. For a realist like me, these are two very different things. Try not to confuse them.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Apisa hasn't defined what "knowing" is yet. As far as he is concerned his knowing is all the knowing there is. And any knowing about which nothing is done is worthless and lasts only as long as the lifetime of such a knower.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

In philosophy, it's not a bad idea to define the concepts you want to use.

I have defined my understanding of "knowledge"; you haven't.

I have defined my concept of "gods"; you haven't.

Now you can attack my definitions all you want, but they have the merit of EXISTING. And being reasonably clear to boot. Yours are missing. You don't even know what you're talking about.

1 Reply

@edgarblythe,

We love you too, ed.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

Quote:
you CAN make a logical comment about something you cannot observe.

“I do not know if there are any living beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol”…is totally appropriate. No need to observe to make that comment.
[emphasis added]
Literally, this is a comment about what you KNOW, and you can "observe" what you know - it's inside your head, not lightyears away.

C'mon, Olivier. "I do not know if there are any living beings on any planet circling the nearest 5 stars to Sol"...is a totally appropriate and logical comment to make about what I do or do not know.

You are trying desperately to make me wrong for no reason other than to try to make me wrong. I have no problem with that...in fact, I laugh till my butt off when I see it happening. But it is worth mentioning.

I am not wrong when I say that I do not know that...and it is a logical comment about something which cannot be observed...something you said could not be done.

But, as I said earlier, you will continue down this path...the same path you tried in the other thread...and all it was was a path to a deeper hole.

Quote:

The rest of your post is at the same level of confusion between 2 different levels: the thing in itself, and our knowledge of this thing. For a realist like me, these are two very different things. Try not to confuse them.

There is no confusion in my posts, Olivier...and honestly, there is very little in yours either. It is obvious that you are making moves of desperation. You realize that what I am saying is right on the button...and you are vacillating between saying it is wrong...and that it is merely a tautology.

That is laughable. If it is a tautology...it is not wrong.

I wonder...are you doing this for the laughs?

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

In philosophy, it's not a bad idea to define the concepts you want to use.

I have defined my understanding of "knowledge"; you haven't.

I have defined my concept of "gods"; you haven't.

Now you can attack my definitions all you want, but they have the merit of EXISTING. And being reasonably clear to boot. Yours are missing. You don't even know what you're talking about.

I do know what I am talking about, Olivier. I know very well what I am talking about.

In this subject issue, I am talking about what I know...and what I do not know.

I suspect (I suppose you want me to define that also) that you know exactly what I am talking about...and further I suspect you mostly agree with what I am saying, but just do not have the strength of character to simply say that you do.

Let's keep at this. It's fun. And perhaps you will learn something when you finally realize that most of what you are serving up here right now is a product of your frustration at not being able to sell the oil!

Frustration is a bitch, Olivier. You have got to learn to deal with it more maturely.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Frustration is a bitch, Olivier. You have got to learn to deal with it more maturely.

Back to his usual tricks I see.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

You see what frankie boy wrote?

Quote:

which you apparently refuse to see

See how he insults people? You "refuse to see" what he sees.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know