How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

No comments...
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAScJvxCy2Y&ab_channel=TheGreatCoursesPlus[/youtube]

Albuquerque wrote:

No comments...
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAScJvxCy2Y&ab_channel=TheGreatCoursesPlus[/youtube]

A more honest way to do a "no comment"...

...is not to post.

I intend to comment.

As for the video...I won't waste my time. I doubt that person will be here to discuss anything with me.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You are a really nasty piece aren't you? Not only are you profoundly ignorant but you refuse to learn! Thankfully others will see the videos and you will look like a fool!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You are a really nasty piece aren't you? Not only are you profoundly ignorant but you refuse to learn! Thankfully others will see the videos and you will look like a fool!

No...I am not a nasty piece nor am I profoundly ignorant. And since I have posted the words, "I was wrong and you are correct" more than anyone else in this forum...I surely am not a person who refuses to learn.

I am a poster here with an opinion. You seem to be bothered that I dare express that opinion.

In any case, my position has been stated...and you seem to be calling up videos to counter...apparently because you cannot. I understand why you cannot, because my position on this issue is unassailable.

You simply lack the spine to acknowledge that my position is correct.

There is no way I will look the fool.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Unlike most around I don't often do arguments ad authority. I explain my POV and just AFTER I can recur to a video if it helps visualize what I meant to say and help my interlocutor grasp what first seemed abstract and odd.
A debate should be an honest, open, frontal, exchange between gentleman even if fierce! No I was not joking nor pulling bullshit as you dismissively tried to suggest. You are the one on the wrong end here not me and oh boy I have more spine then you or most around could ever dream to have. I have no intellectual debts with university career or money making, nor religious attachments and bounding! I seek and search relentlessly for more clarity in spite of the price I will end up paying for it! That takes balls and courage my friend! Most of you rather live in a convenient monkey delusion all the time!

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

...you see way before I learned Einstein 30 years ago or around that I already got to the idea that past present and future co-exist through a totally different way/process.

I think about concepts and their robustness all the time. That is what I do most of my waking hours!
I took a long thinking over decades about the concept of Nothingness and how it is contradictory and self destroying, self absorbing. Nothingness is nothing! From very early when I came to knew the Universe expanded I was wondering expanding to what out of space? To what? How? Into nothingness? But nothingness has no properties...not even the property of alloying motion through it...so I gather that the future must already be there and the past must still be real. The expansion is a within time perspective I reasoned. Then I learned about Parmenides...later about fractals, infinity...and so on. All my life I have been trying to make sense of a lot of things in an absolutely interdisciplinary way! The result shakes me like a rag doll to the core every day...

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You are the one on the wrong end here not me

Here is my position. Please tell me what you see to be wrong with it:

If there are people here arguing that there are no gods (creating entities)...or that it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one god...

...then they are essentially arguing from the same standpoint as those arguing that there is at least one god...or that it is more likely that there is at least one god than that there are no gods.

All of those things are nothing but blind guess...and NOT the result of reason or logic or anything else. And some (most) of the so-called logic used is so defective, it is laughable.

Once again...read "god or gods" to mean, For the purposes of my comment above...assume I mean: A being or entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF SUCH A BEING OR ENTITY DOES EXIST.

What on Earth do you see as "wrong" or "inaccurate" about what I have said there?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Well succinctly my point is very simple, while you can argue for agnosticism, you can also argue against it for the same reason, that is you cannot know if you can or cannot know. You should be agnostic about your agnosticism. And alas, you are not one step further agnostic! That in my view entails some level of contradiction even if nuanced.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Well succinctly my point is very simple, while you can argue for agnosticism, you can also argue against it for the same reason, that is you cannot know if you can or cannot know. You should be agnostic about your agnosticism. And alas, you are not one step further agnostic! That in my view entails some level of contradiction even if nuanced.

Forget about diverting by asserting descriptors. Deal with what I wrote...or simply acknowledge that what I wrote makes sense, is reasonable...and you cannot argue against it effectively.

I absolutely KNOW that I do not know if any gods exist.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You are making a positive epistemological statement about lack of certainty, thus pleading for ignorance pointing to transcendence. You claim knowledge about your absolute ignorance just like Socrates. That is the contradiction. And I know you have the brains to get what I aiming at.
The problem is that such technique is a two way street...

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You are making a positive epistemological statement about lack of certainty, thus pleading for ignorance pointing to transcendence. You claim knowledge about your absolute ignorance just like Socrates. That is the contradiction. And I know you have the brains to get what I aiming at.
The problem is that such technique is a two way street...

You really do not want to fess up that what I said was reasonable and correct, do you?

Let me put my statement in another way. Maybe you can actually comment on what I say than just try to avoid doing that.

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.

C'mon, Al...give it a try. You seem to disagree with me. Tell me what you see wrong with what I have written...rather than diverting.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

You are taking the pragmatic approach but the fact of the matter is that you do not know enough about what you do or do not know. Take it seriously or dismiss it, not my problem, it is up to you!

On a side note I make a clear distinction between Ultimate Reality which could be rounded in a non personal monolith Ratio sort of "God" representing the Unity of what is real, and on a lesser level, what could be better described as a pseudo agent (no free will) of great power when compared to us, a demi-God. Such things could be agents as such things have goals and problem solving minds on their own domain of operations, as they lack completeness and thus behave like living things and act with volition.
I do not mix the two and this is why in my POV I do KNOW that the classical concept of God is not internally consistent just like a square circle does NOT exist!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

You are taking the pragmatic approach but the fact of the matter is that you do not know enough about what you do or do not know. Take it seriously or dismiss it, not my problem, it is up to you!

On a side note I make a clear distinction between Ultimate Reality which could be rounded in a non personal monolith Ratio sort of "God" representing the Unity of what is real, and on a lesser level what could be better described as a pseudo agent (no free will) of great power when compared to us, a demi-God. Such things could be agents as such things have goals and problem solving minds on their own domain of operations and thus behave like living things and act with volition.
I do not mix the two and this is why in my POV i do KNOW that the classical concept of God is not internally consistent just like a square circle does NOT exist!

Let me put this slightly differently:

You really do not want to fess up that what I said was reasonable and correct, do you?

Let me put my statement in another way. Maybe you can actually comment on what I say than just try to avoid doing that.

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.

C'mon, Al...give it a try. You seem to disagree with me. Tell me what you see wrong with what I have written...rather than diverting.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey Frank I was open and honest about what I think, if you do not like it or take it seriously I can do nothing about it!

I do Fil Albuquerque stuff I do not do Frank Apisa stuff...

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Hey Frank I was open and honest about what I think, if you do not like it or take it seriously I can do nothing about it!

I do Fil Albuquerque stuff I do not do Frank Apisa stuff...

No problemo, Al.

But since you seem to think I am ignorant because of what I wrote...

...I was just wondering if you wanted to tell me what you actually disagreed with.

I can slow it down for you.

Let's just take a piece of it:

I do not know if any gods exist or not.

What do you find as ignorant...or wrong...about that?

Actually answer the question. Don't just dodge it.

Just answer it.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

There is an argument to say that you do not know and another to state that you cannot know what you do not know.

...you see if you really can't then you do not know what is it that you don't know about. It is mute. It is an unknown unknown. Any positive statement about unknown unknowns is fallacious.

A word without clear meaning cannot be addressed. Not even regarding agnosticism.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...oh wait, can I pat myself in the back now? I just beat Socrates!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

There is an argument to say that you do not know and another to state that you cannot know what you do not know.

...you see if you really can't then you do not know what is it that you don't know about. It is mute. It is an unknown unknown. Any positive statement about unknown unknowns is fallacious.

A word without clear meaning cannot be addressed. Not even regarding agnosticism.

I did not mention agnosticism in my comment...WHICH YOU STILL HAVE NOT ADDRESSED.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

...oh wait, can I pat myself in the back now? I just beat Socrates!

No, you cannot.

Socrates would not have used "mute" is he meant "moot."

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

...aaaah common ffs! Very Happy

0 Replies

How can we be sure that all religions are wrong?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know