Toughest Philosophical Questions

@cicerone imposter,

Wake up, ci.

Reasoning Logic asked me about "hold this to a high degree."

I asked him what he was talking about. I had no idea of what he meant by "high degree."

Read the posts immediately before the post from which you are quoting...and you will see that Reasoning Logic brought up this "high degree" thingy...which I still do not understand...and all I did was to ask him about it.

Then grow a bit of character and acknowledge that you are totally wrong on this thing. Perhaps then you can also grow the fiber to offer an apology...which, of course, I will graciously accept.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Actually, I want to apologize for the tone of that last post, ci.

I could have said what I had to say in a more civil and polite manner.

2 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Frank Apisa - 08/15/2012Actually, I want to apologize for the tone of that last post, ci. I could have said what I had to say in a more civil and polite manner.
Frank Apisa - 08/15/2012Wake up, ci. Reasoning Logic asked me about "hold this to a high degree." I asked him what he was talking about. I had no idea of what he meant by "high degree." Read the

Is Frank Hiding from me? I see a reply but I can not read it without clicking on the reply.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

That was funny now they are here "I never seen that before. Smile

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Is Frank Hiding from me? I see a reply but I can not read it without clicking on the reply.

I had the same problem, Reasoning. But now...with the addition of your post...we can see all the responses.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Actually, I want to apologize for the tone of that last post, ci.

I could have said what I had to say in a more civil and polite manner.

What a true gentleman.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Okay, Frank, I was wrong, and I apologize for assigning to you the word "degree."

As for many who have discussed this subject with you, most have disagreed with you, and so do I. That's not conjecture; it's a fact.

Proving or disproving god or the easter bunny fits into the same category.

That's a fact.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

As I said, Easter Bunnies are only important to Internet Atheists and little kids. If you have questions about Easter Bunnies...ask one of them.

The way I see it Frank is that a God concept is no more valid than an Easter bunny concept. It seems to me that you hold one of these possibilities to a higher probability than the other or should I say that you are more likely to address a conversation about the possibilities of a God than you would an Easter bunny and I just wanted to know why?

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

I agree with this article on "the burden of proof."

http://www.qcc.cuny.edu/socialsciences/ppecorino/phil_of_religion_text/CHAPTER_5_ARGUMENTS_EXPERIENCE/Burden-of-Proof.htm

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Okay, Frank, I was wrong, and I apologize for assigning to you the word "degree."

Graciously accepted.

I understand you disagree with me on many things, but I was not discussing those things here. I was discussing the one single point that I raised.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

The way I see it Frank is that a God concept is no more valid than an Easter bunny concept. It seems to me that you hold one of these possibilities to a higher probability than the other or should I say that you are more likely to address a conversation about the possibilities of a God than you would an Easter bunny and I just wanted to know why?

Because I am not a member of one of the two groups that seems obsessed with the Easter Bunny. I am not a kid...and I am not an Internet atheist

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Because I am not a member of one of the two groups that seems obsessed with the Easter Bunny. I am not a kid...and I am not an Internet atheis

Would this put you into a group of theists, being that you hold a greater probability or should I say that you are more likely willing to discuss the probability?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

He doesn't know. Mr. Green

0 Replies

TO BOTH REASONING LOGIC AND CI:

I have answered this question…responded to this inquiry…dozens upon dozens of times here in A2K…using variations of the same theme.

Internet atheists in this forum simply will not accept the explanation.

Nothing I can do about that…so I simply accept that it will not be accepted.

Here is a brief recap of the main theme.

I am not truly dealing with the question “Are there gods?” I am dealing with the question, “What is the nature of the REALITY of existence?”

Essentially, I am curious about why everything that IS…IS.

There are lots of theories to consider. Some people theorize that existence simply always has been…that there has never been a “time” when there was nothing. Some theorize that at one point there actually was nothing (although often considered a special kind of nothing)…from which something came into existence. Some theorize that there is a GOD (or gods) that has (have) always existed…and that the GOD or gods brought what we consider existence…into being. Some theorize that there is one GOD…and that the individual doing the considering is that GOD…and that the thing we consider existence is nothing more than an illusion created by the considerer in order to play in it.

I DO NOT KNOW IF ANY OF THESE THEORIES ARE CORRECT…I DO NOT KNOW IF THEY ARE ALL WRONG…I DO NOT KNOW IF the actual explanation for existence is so different from anything we humans are able to comprehend, that any speculation on our part is absurd.

NOW…when the question of “Are there gods?” comes up…it is something which actually has meaning in the discussion or consideration of all that. There may be gods; there may be a GOD; there may be no gods.

I am willing to discuss that because it has relevance in the question which interests me: “What is the nature of the REALITY of existence?” I am willing to discuss it.

Whether there are Easter Bunnies; tooth fairies; unicorns; flying spaghetti monsters; CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn…

…SIMPLY DOES NOT CONCERN ME NOR DOES IT HOLD ANY INTEREST FOR ME. I am not willing to discuss it…even though I see it holds great fascination for Internet atheists and small children.

You two are completely free to consider the possible existence or non-existence of gods to be IDENTICAL to the possible existence or non-existence of Easter Bunnies; tooth fairies; unicorns; flying spaghetti monsters; CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn. That is your right.

You also are completely free to consider my refusal to agree with you on that issue to be the height of hypocrisy and underhandedness on my part if you choose.

Nothing I can do about that.

I think you are wrong if you do…but you are free to do it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You two are completely free to consider the possible existence or non-existence of gods to be IDENTICAL to the possible existence or non-existence of Easter Bunnies; tooth fairies; unicorns; flying spaghetti monsters; CPA’s working on one of the moons of Saturn. That is your right.

You also are completely free to consider my refusal to agree with you on that issue to be the height of hypocrisy and underhandedness on my part if you choose.

OK so you think that the possible existence of gods to be "NOT IDENTICAL to the possible existence or non-existence of Easter Bunnies; tooth fairies; unicorns; flying spaghetti monsters.
That is all that I was trying to understand about you. Thanks Frank.

Just out of curiosity Frank, Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, I guess you didn't read the URL I provided earlier.

This is an excerpt from it.

Quote:

You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

It's about logic, Frank.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

OK so you think that the possible existence of gods to be "NOT IDENTICAL to the possible existence or non-existence of Easter Bunnies; tooth fairies; unicorns; flying spaghetti monsters.
That is all that I was trying to understand about you. Thanks Frank.

Just out of curiosity Frank, Do you have any evidence to support your conclusion?

Absolutely. I will personally vouch for the fact that I think that.

0 Replies

@cicerone imposter,

Quote:

Re: Frank Apisa (Post 5078197)
Frank, I guess you didn't read the URL I provided earlier.

This is an excerpt from it.
Quote:
You cannot claim that "deities exist unless someone proves that they do not exist."

The burden of proof is always on the claim that X exists rather than on the claim that X does not exist. It is a fallacy to claim that X exists unless you prove that there is no X. What is improper is for a person to claim that "X exists" and when asked to prove it, then the person who made the claim uses as a defense of "X exists" the next claim that no one has proven that X does not exist.

It's about logic, Frank.

I do not know what in hell you are talking about here.

What part of this is a quote from me...and where did it come from?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You wrote,

Quote:

What part of this is a quote from me...and where did it come from?

Frank, Go back and re-read my post. I never claimed "you" wrote it. I said it's an excerpt from the URL I posted earlier.

1 Reply

@cicerone imposter,

Link me to it.

2 Replies

Toughest Philosophical Questions

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know