Yes, I understand. This still isn't rational. No more rational than the idea that if Godzilla existed, it could destroy Tokyo. You've presented a self-licking ice cream cone.
Sorry Art, but if you that "if a thing exists it possibly could be found"…isn’t rational, you are just not thinking clearly.
Try to put your difficulties with me aside and actually focus on the issue.
If a thing exists…it possibly can be found. Nothing irrational about that at all.
As I stated above, it's what you're willing to grant an if to and why. The statement of "if X exists, there is a possibility of observing X" is remarkably similar to something I said two threads ago. I stated that nothing is unknowable, only our observational and linguistic ability is limited. So if a Higgs-boson is real, there is a possibility of observing it. But let's not put the Higgs-boson on the same pool of consideration as gods, imps, or fairies. The reasons for speculating on such a particle are based on other real observations and experimentation. The "if" for the boson is very rational, even if the Higgs proves to be a bust. The same is not true for things like gods.So if a Higgs-boson is real, there is a possibility of observing it. But let's not put the Higgs-boson on the same pool of consideration as gods, imps, or fairies. The reasons for speculating on such a particle are based on other real observations and experimentation. The "if" for the boson is very rational, even if the Higgs proves to be a bust. The same is not true for things like gods.
I think I asked you at that time if you KNOW “nothing is unknowable” or if it was a guess.
I ask again. Is that something you KNOW…or is it just a guess?
Re my remark about Sam Harris, you wrote:
I did not say he is infallible. Only religious observers make that kind of claim. I simply stated that I believe he put it "best."
Fine, so I ask again. Has Sam Harris ever been wrong? If “YES”…maybe he is wrong about this...no matter how “best” he put it.
You've mentioned it, yes. It remains untrue. You most certainly have beliefs. Why you're sensitive about this, is beyond me.
I am not interested in what is beyond you, Art. I have no beliefs. I make guesses…and I call them guesses; I make estimates…and I call them estimates. I do not do “believing.” Deal with that however you want…but try not to be sensitive about it.
It is an fallacious concept. I don't need to grasp it. You have plenty of beliefs.
No, I do not. But I understand you have a belief that I have beliefs. That is one of the problems I have with beliefs. They can be ever so wrong.
Since atheism is a statement on belief and not knowledge, this statement is non-sequitur. This is like saying bald people can't part their hair.
If you are going to trot out trite atheistic sayings, Art…at least do it where appropriate. Atheists cannot KNOW there are no gods. That has nothing to do with bald people not being able to part their hair.
Frank Apisa wrote:
Thanks for your input, Art. I see that we continue to disagree, but I appreciate you continuing to post your thoughts and disagreements.
Good…and I will continue to be appreciative of your input., Art.