43
   

Are atheists being more illogical than agnostics?

 
 
igm
 
  1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 02:27 pm
@Jasper10,
From what you say, and keeping within the context of my original post are you saying that you are taking a third position (theist position) which is that you 'hope' God exists?

Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 02:27 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:


Frank Apisa wrote:

I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...)


Taking what you've said in your last reply to be this case, do you have a direct reply to my question based on what you've previously said?

Do you see no reason that God or gods could not have created the Universe (as you define it "what we humans call 'the physical universe'") and that is equal to all other current possible explanations of how the universe was created? If not then you should have (to quote you) a 'reason to suspect that gods cannot exist'. The word 'suspect' is important as you assert that you have no reason to 'suspect that gods cannot exist...'




Quote:
Do you see no reason that God or gods could not have created the Universe...


I see no reason to suspect that a GOD or gods could not have created this thing we humans call "the universe."

I also see no reason that a GOD or gods could not have created the Universe.

Quote:
...and that is equal to all other current possible explanations of how the universe was created?


I see no reason to suppose one possible explanation of how the universe was created over any other...with regard to whether or not a GOD or gods were involved.

IF this thing we humans call "the universe" was created via the Big Bang...I certainly see no reason to rule out that Big Bang being the method a GOD OR gods used to facilitate the creation.

Quote:
If not then you should have (to quote you) a 'reason to suspect that gods cannot exist'.


See above.

Quote:
The word 'suspect' is important as you assert that you have no reason to 'suspect that gods cannot exist...'


What do you see wrong, illogical, or unreasonable with my comment, "I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist?"

What do you see wrong, illogical, or unreasonable with my comment, "I see no reason to suspect that at least one GOD must exist?"

I think both of those comments are totally logical, reasonable...and true...so???


igm
 
  0  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 02:43 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...)

Can't you suspect something is untrue without knowing it is untrue? There is no evidence for God. There are many cogent explanations of how things can appear without the need for a God to create them. Surely, this must give you grounds to 'suspect' that there isn't a creator God?
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 03:12 pm
@igm,
Quote:
Agnostic: a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence or nature of God or gods.

Not that I agree with your definition, but you did accurately define Frank's position.

Oh sure, he claims to not have beliefs but we all know that’s just a dodge.
All you have to do to fix it is substitute 'knows' for 'believes' and that is equally absurd, or narcissistic.

One can legitimately claim not to know if a Creator exists. And one can decide that one will forever disavow any knowledge or evidence of a Creator.
But insisting that no one can ever know or see that evidence requires a level of ego that knows no limit.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 03:17 pm
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…
(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'...)

Can't you suspect something is untrue without knowing it is untrue? There is no evidence for God. There are many cogent explanations of how things can appear without the need for a God to create them. Surely, this must give you grounds to 'suspect' that there isn't a creator God?



Why?

Why?

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...

...so are you saying that because of that, I sh0uld suspect that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets?

C'mon.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 04:22 pm
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'.)


Honestly, if you just left the first and the last, you'd be right.

As to a reason why God or gods must exist, the answer is actually in the parentheses you just wrote.

1. If we define God or gods to mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'" then you've already answered the question of why it is a must that God or gods exist. Because someone or something ( you could always go the Eldritch Abomination route and say evil monsters created everything to torture us) is responsible for the physical universe.
2. This does not require belief in afterlife, a spiritual reality, religious dogma, or the idea that such a deity/deities are good/care for us/or require worship.
3. It also does not legally or morally bind you to join any religion, sect, or cult. What it does do is free you from the madness of defining God/gods as above yet declaring that you're "not sure" whether creation happened. Even if we reject that real creation happened, and instead it's just you or me sitting in a void having our minds create hallucinations, someone created that false reality (but it's us).

Congratulations, you're either a deist (in which case no worship is necessary). Or you're God (in which case no worship is necessary, for certain obvious reasons). Pick whichever one seems right to you.

If you reject both, well then you're crazy because you say God/gods means being responsible for the universe, but you "can't be sure" about an entity who exists under a self-evident condition like that.
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 04:31 pm
@Leadfoot,
He actually defined the conditions whereby one can know. I posted it above.

He'll likely continue to maintain this position though.
Leadfoot
 
  1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 05:27 pm
@bulmabriefs144,
Quote:
He actually defined the conditions whereby one can know. I posted it above.

I think Frank has explicitly or implicitly said that the fact of ‘existence' does not constitute evidence for God's existence. He is happy to accept the authority of others who say there are other plausible explanations.

That is a sorry excuse for someone who claims to know that there is no other question as important as this one.
0 Replies
 
Jasper10
 
  -1  
Thu 21 Apr, 2022 10:33 pm
@igm,
Yes…I hope God exists.

All anyone can do is hope that God does or doesn’t exist if no definitive proof is provided.

You can reject God whether you hope he exists or not.





Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 02:45 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:

Quote:
I see no reason to suspect that gods cannot exist…that the existence of a GOD or gods is impossible.

(When I use the word "GOD or gods" here, I mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'.)


Honestly, if you just left the first and the last, you'd be right.

As to a reason why God or gods must exist, the answer is actually in the parentheses you just wrote.


1. If we define God or gods to mean "The entity (or entities) responsible for the creation of what we humans call 'the physical universe'" then you've already answered the question of why it is a must that God or gods exist. Because someone or something ( you could always go the Eldritch Abomination route and say evil monsters created everything to torture us) is responsible for the physical universe.
2. This does not require belief in afterlife, a spiritual reality, religious dogma, or the idea that such a deity/deities are good/care for us/or require worship.
3. It also does not legally or morally bind you to join any religion, sect, or cult. What it does do is free you from the madness of defining God/gods as above yet declaring that you're "not sure" whether creation happened. Even if we reject that real creation happened, and instead it's just you or me sitting in a void having our minds create hallucinations, someone created that false reality (but it's us).

Congratulations, you're either a deist (in which case no worship is necessary). Or you're God (in which case no worship is necessary, for certain obvious reasons). Pick whichever one seems right to you.

If you reject both, well then you're crazy because you say God/gods means being responsible for the universe, but you "can't be sure" about an entity who exists under a self-evident condition like that.


The only people who insist there HAS TO BE A GOD...are people who already blindly guess there there is a GOD (and who guess they know what that "god" is like). There is no logic to the guess...as you suppose there is. Some people blindly guess that there are no gods. Either there is at least one GOD or there are none. All we can do is to make a guess as to which it is. It is not something that one can arrive at using logic, reason, science, or math. In fact, we cannot even arrive at which is more likely using logic, reason, science or math...so you really should stop asserting that it is a "must."
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 05:52 am
@Jasper10,
The proof is in the definition of what God does. Don't you see that?

You're living in a created world, typically requiring a creator. I'm not sure it matters whether it's real or not. In fact, I usually contend that it's not real, because people (including myself) tend to take things far too seriously.

In fact, no matter what things look like, if there is someone to experience things, we're talking about the created world. Atheists and agnostics use trickety trick explanations, but there is not one but about five elephants in the room.

1. We live in a created world. That demands a creator.
2. Supposing you are going to say God didn't do it. You have some other explanation: space aliens, abiogenesis, a council of five/twenty/3 million deities, humans themselves. Each explanation fails, if it is a created thing. A created thing cannot create all things because something has to create it, and so on until you get to an uncreated creator.
3. But suppose you say that through some loop of time, a created thing created itself. Fine, you have just made bacteria or atoms or primordial ooze your God. Or luck, usually, as these types ultimately believe in random chance. Big money, big money!
4. We can also talk scientific laws like cause and effect or the conservation of matter. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Given this, we have a universe that depends on pretty tight rules, usually involving reorganizing matter. All of these demand significant level of complexity. But that's not even our argument. If all matter and energy is reorganized from the same stuff, then all matter and energy is God, everything in the physical or spiritual world, good or not, real or not. God is real and easily be seen, even by someone under a delusion.
5. If somehow you had some explanation (yeah right) that didn't involve God, you would have to explain life. You see, life isn't a physical thing. Supposing someone was just struck dead. There was nothing wrong with their organ, you just stop breathing one day. A corpse is atomically, chemically, and basically every other aspect similar to a living body. But it's like a computer that is not plugged in (we're not talking about a desktop with a battery but an old laptop). There's no energy there. The thing about life? In a laptop that is fully capable of just sitting there, but dead things putrefy rather quickly. You're alive for years with only minor issues. But it takes about 8-10 days for your body to massively break down. Life then, is an energy that preserves existence of living things. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

After that, they usually call me stupid (when they're the ones that can't come up with a logical retort)

Jasper10
 
  -1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 06:30 am
@bulmabriefs144,
I get the concept of perfection/imperfection bulma.

My issue is where is the reference point to measure perfection/imperfection and how does a God relate to this?

This is why I mentioned rules and hope.

Hope is the easier of the two to understand because all anyone has is a hope in something one way or the other if there is no perfect evidence one way or the other.I get that.

Rules on the other hand can surely only apply if there is difference between good and bad….which I suppose is another hope one way or the other as to whether there is a difference.

If you break rules then you haven’t kept them perfectly clearly and it would be impossible to un break those rules.

It would appear to me that rules or no rules is also the crux of the issue.



Leadfoot
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 06:46 am
Frank said:
Quote:
It is not something that one can arrive at using logic, reason, science, or math. In fact, we cannot even arrive at which is more likely using logic, reason, science or math..

Well it’s good to see that Frank's certainty about what others cannot know is matched by what he thinks the sciences cannot know.

It’s an interesting theology he’s developed. One wonders at the mysterious source of his knowledge. It’s not God (for obvious reasons) and it isn’t science so the only remaining possibility is that he must be the only human ever born with this supernatural knowledge of God’s 'unknowableness'. Frank Knows what God is like!

I do have some sympathy for his position. I seem to have been born with the complementary version of that knowledge.
(Although I do disagree with his assertion about science)
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 08:25 am
@bulmabriefs144,
bulmabriefs144 wrote:


The proof is in the definition of what God does. Don't you see that?

You're living in a created world, typically requiring a creator. I'm not sure it matters whether it's real or not. In fact, I usually contend that it's not real, because people (including myself) tend to take things far too seriously.

In fact, no matter what things look like, if there is someone to experience things, we're talking about the created world. Atheists and agnostics use trickety trick explanations, but there is not one but about five elephants in the room.

1. We live in a created world. That demands a creator.
2. Supposing you are going to say God didn't do it. You have some other explanation: space aliens, abiogenesis, a council of five/twenty/3 million deities, humans themselves. Each explanation fails, if it is a created thing. A created thing cannot create all things because something has to create it, and so on until you get to an uncreated creator.
3. But suppose you say that through some loop of time, a created thing created itself. Fine, you have just made bacteria or atoms or primordial ooze your God. Or luck, usually, as these types ultimately believe in random chance. Big money, big money!
4. We can also talk scientific laws like cause and effect or the conservation of matter. "Matter cannot be created or destroyed." Given this, we have a universe that depends on pretty tight rules, usually involving reorganizing matter. All of these demand significant level of complexity. But that's not even our argument. If all matter and energy is reorganized from the same stuff, then all matter and energy is God, everything in the physical or spiritual world, good or not, real or not. God is real and easily be seen, even by someone under a delusion.
5. If somehow you had some explanation (yeah right) that didn't involve God, you would have to explain life. You see, life isn't a physical thing. Supposing someone was just struck dead. There was nothing wrong with their organ, you just stop breathing one day. A corpse is atomically, chemically, and basically every other aspect similar to a living body. But it's like a computer that is not plugged in (we're not talking about a desktop with a battery but an old laptop). There's no energy there. The thing about life? In a laptop that is fully capable of just sitting there, but dead things putrefy rather quickly. You're alive for years with only minor issues. But it takes about 8-10 days for your body to massively break down. Life then, is an energy that preserves existence of living things. Remember that you are dust, and to dust you shall return.

After that, they usually call me stupid (when they're the ones that can't come up with a logical retort)




The "logical" retort is that you have arbitrarily asserted that this is a "created world"...which necessitates a "creator."

How would you react if someone asserted, "This is NOT a created world, which means there is no "creator?"

Any logician you asked would tell you that your argument is NOT LOGICAL.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 08:38 am
@Frank Apisa,
Frank Apisa wrote:

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...

...so are you saying that because of that, I sh0uld suspect that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets?

Replace what you've said above with the words 'creator God' because we know there are sentient beings. Your argument then reads like this:

"There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that there is a creator God living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...
...so are you saying that because of that, I sh0uld suspect that there isn't a creator God on any of those planets?"

My answer is yes because of the balance of probabilities, one should suspect that a creator God does not exist.

To say a creator God is as likely as not takes faith alone and appears to have nothing to do with logic, given the balance of probabilities and complete lack of evidence. Logically on the balance of probabilities, a creator God should be suspected of not existing but you can have faith that there is one but faith alone, not logic.



Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 09:51 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...

...so are you saying that because of that, I sh0uld suspect that there are no sentient beings on any of those planets?

Replace what you've said above with the words 'creator God' because we know there are sentient beings. Your argument then reads like this:

"There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE WHATEVER that there is a creator God living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...
...so are you saying that because of that, I sh0uld suspect that there isn't a creator God on any of those planets?"

My answer is yes because of the balance of probabilities, one should suspect that a creator God does not exist.

To say a creator God is as likely as not takes faith alone and appears to have nothing to do with logic, given the balance of probabilities and complete lack of evidence. Logically on the balance of probabilities, a creator God should be suspected of not existing but you can have faith that there is one but faith alone, not logic.


If you want to "suspect" there are no gods...please do so. I will never interfere...nor ask for any laws that interfere. But if you want to think that you have arrived at "There are no gods" or "It is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one" via logic, reason, science, or math...

...you are dead wrong.

I do not know if there is at least one god...or if there are none...and I DO NOT HAVE ENOUGH UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE UPON WHICH TO BASE A MEANINGFUL GUESS IN EITHER DIRECTION.

You apparently are willing to pretend there is enough unambiguous evidence upon which to base a meaningful guess. So...do it.
0 Replies
 
igm
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 10:46 am
@igm,

I think that deep down Frank, consciously or unconsciously, you have faith that there just might be a creator God and that your refusal to deny the existence of that creator God might lead you to salvation... I might be wrong.

I'm without the need for that.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 11:06 am
@igm,
igm wrote:

I think that deep down Frank, consciously or unconsciously, you have faith that there just might be a creator God and that your refusal to deny the existence of that creator God might lead you to salvation... I might be wrong.


You are wrong. I have no idea of what this "salvation" bullshit is all about, but the last thing in the world I want is "eternal life." I am perfectly happy to die when my time comes. I am not particularly anxious for that time to come, because I am having a great time living this life right now.

In any case, I do not "have faith that there just might be a creator God." I know beyond a shred of doubt that there MIGHT be a creator God. That is one of the POSSIBILITIES in the continuum "Is there at least one god or are there none."

For the people who insist one way or the other...or who insist that one way is more likely than the other...I just laugh at the thought.

You people who conclude "There definitely are no gods" use the same "evidence" used by others who conclude "There definitely is at least one GOD." Are you truly unable to see that as the absurdity it is?

Quote:

I'm without the need for that.


I do not know what you mean by that.
0 Replies
 
bulmabriefs144
 
  -1  
Fri 22 Apr, 2022 06:13 pm
@Jasper10,
I don't think you read the same thing as I wrote.

I didn't mention perfection or imperfection.

Also, cracking up that muting just three or so people resulted in a solid five posts being blocked.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/28/2022 at 08:55:50