Morality (a discussion)

@knaivete,

knaivete wrote:

While we await Popeye's potentially eponymous riposte I'd like to play.

Do you really want to go through your tiresome spiel again Francis?

My name is Frank...not Francis.

Since you find what I have to say to be "tiresome spiel"...I have spoken to the moderators...and you are no longer required to read my posts.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque, That sounds kind of like Albert's god as well. More metaphor than someone always checking up on you!-- LOL!

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Frank, Well yes, didn't mean to stress you. My idea of the concept of gods in general is that they are products of the human imagination. To me, the concept is a little off the topic of morality, an example of futility.

1 Reply

@popeye1945,

popeye1945 wrote:

Frank, Well yes, didn't mean to stress you. My idea of the concept of gods in general is that they are products of the human imagination. To me, the concept is a little off the topic of morality, an example of futility.

You do not stress me. The object of the forum is DISCUSSION.

Your answer may or may not be an answer to my questions. I cannot determine for sure, because of the way you worded your comments. I'll give it another try, because I want to understand what you are saying.

First question:

Quote:

My reading of your comments leads towards: Popeye seems to think there are no gods at all...perhaps even that "the existence of gods (or at least one GOD) is impossible."

Is that your position?

That question can be answered with one of two words...either YES or NO. Either it IS your position...or it is NOT your position.

Then you can explain your answer if you deem that appropriate. But since your comments here revived a thread that had been dormant for 7 years (and since your comments do seem to point in that direction)...an answer would be appreciated.

Quote:

Are you able (willing) actually to state YOUR position on the issue?

Again a question that can be answered with one of two words...either YES or NO.

Then you can explain that answer if necessary...and perhaps ACTUALLY STATE THAT POSITION.

As for the issue being "off topic"...YOU are the one who started the side-track by the arguments you are making.

I may be wrong. I may be misinterpreting what you are suggesting. I'd sure like to find out...and you seem to be the only one who can clear it up for me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Let me ask you a question Frank...how would a snail distinguish a demi-god from God? And how meaningful would be a dispute on a snail's concept of the Snail God where the pastures are ever green and the water is plentiful?

...when the boundaries of a concept can stretch to transcendence I rather don't mention anything about it, nor yay, nor nay, nor I don't know, as it is clear I don't grasp what the concept really is addressing nor what it really means.

An unknown unknown cannot be spoken off in any sense.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Let me ask you a question Frank...how would a snail distinguish a demi-god from God?

Beats me. What is your point?

Quote:

And how meaningful would be a dispute on a snail's concept of the Snail God where the pastures are ever green and the water is plentiful?

Beats me. What is your point?

Quote:

...when the boundaries of a concept can stretch to transcendence I rather don't mention anything about it, nor yay, nor nay, nor I don't know, as it is clear I don't grasp what the concept really is addressing nor what it really means.

I have no idea of what you are saying about yourself here, Al...but I thank you for sharing it.

Quote:

An unknown unknown cannot be spoken off in any sense.

You seem to be speaking of it right there.

Did I miss something?

1 Reply

Fank, When I stated that I thought gods were the products of people's imagination, I would think that is not at all obscure or necessitate any further clarification. Still not clear?

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

How can you refer to or qualify an unknown unknown Frank?
By definition an unknown unknown cannot be referred to in any meaningful manner.
You DON'T KNOW what is it that you DON'T KNOW!!!
You cannot frame or point to any concept, because an unknown unknown cannot be conceptualized. You cannot be in favour nor against nor agnostic of an undefined X.
This is what you missed Frank!
When someone can provide me with a self consistent non contradictory concept of God then and only then can I qualify my agnosticism about a Known Unknown. As is I just don't know what is it that you don't know about!

Are you agnostic about Brrrt Zzzzt?
(Naming a thing doesn't mean you addressed a thing)

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

How can you refer to or qualify an unknown unknown Frank?

Because he has a nagging feeling that this unknown may not be unknowable.
But he wants to be convinced one way or another.

Popeye may be helping him, but not in a good way.

0 Replies

@popeye1945,

popeye1945 wrote:

Fank, When I stated that I thought gods were the products of people's imagination, I would think that is not at all obscure or necessitate any further clarification. Still not clear?

No.

That "no" WAS a clear response to your question.

But I will accept that you "think" there are no gods...and that you "think" the existence of any gods is impossible...despite your reluctance to do so in an unambiguous way.

I thank you for your blind guesses (that there are no gods...and that the existence of any gods is impossible). They are as humorous to me as the blind guess that there is at least one god.

Not sure why you people make those guesses, but you certainly do.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

How can you refer to or qualify an unknown unknown Frank?
By definition an unknown unknown cannot be referred to in any meaningful manner.
You DON'T KNOW what is it that you DON'T KNOW!!!

I CAN KNOW WHAT I DO NOT KNOW.

I KNOW that I DO NOT KNOW if there are any sentient being living on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol. I KNOW that I DO NOT KNOW the exact number of stars that exist in the galaxy of which we are a part at this exact moment.

Quote:

You cannot frame or point to any concept, because an unknown unknown cannot be conceptualized. You cannot be in favour nor against nor agnostic of an undefined X.
This is what you missed Frank!

I am not missing anything of the sort. You are simply unwilling to acknowledge that I do KNOW that I do not KNOW many things...and you apparently are unwilling to acknowledge that you KNOW the things you do not know.

Quote:

When someone can provide me with a self consistent non contradictory concept of God then and only then can I qualify my agnosticism about a Known Unknown. As is I just don't know what is it that you don't know about!

I have explained it several times.

I do thank you for conceding that YOU DO NOT KNOW what it is that I do not know about despite the fact that I have explained it to you often.

Quote:

Are you agnostic about Brrrt Zzzzt?
(Naming a thing doesn't mean you addressed a thing)

If you think that because I do not know if any sentient beings exist on any planet circling the nearest 15 stars to Sol...that I therefore do not know anything...you are nuts.

Go be nuts with someone else.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

There are 3 Categories Frank, three!

1 - What you know.
2 - What you know that you don't know.
3 - What you don't know you don't know.

Sentient beings are on the second while a ill defined concept of God is on the third!

I am sorry something crystal clear looks hard to you. Here let me help ya:

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

There are 3 Categories Frank, three!

1 - What you know.
2 - What you know that you don't know.
3 - What you don't know you don't know.

Sentient beings are on the second while a ill defined concept of God is on the third!

I am sorry something crystal clear looks hard to you. Here let me help ya:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GiPe1OiKQuk&ab_channel=Ali[/youtube]
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Boa5vBQp9YQ&ab_channel=TEDxTalks[/youtube]

There is nothing "ill-defined" about what I mean when I say "god." So stop that bullshit.

When I say I do not know if any gods exist...I use the word "god" to mean, "The entity responsible for the creation of what we humans call "the physical universe"...IF SUCH AN ENTITY EXISTS."

I am saying I do not know the answer to the mysteries of what "all this" is all about.

I know goddam well that I do not know the answers to all the questions about the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

In passing, I do not envy those of you who delude yourself into thinking that YOU DO.

I do not KNOW how "all this" came into being IF IT DID COME INTO BEING...and I do not KNOW how it is that it always existed IF IT HAS ALWAYS EXISTED.

I KNOW THAT I DO NOT KNOW THAT STUFF...

...and although there is a mild bit of amusement in listening to you pretend you are explaining to me that I do not KNOW that I do not KNOW it...

...I must acknowledge that along with that mild amusement there is the sense that you are totally full of ****.

We can certainly discuss that if you want...

...of you can continue with your preposterous public mind masturbation.

Your choice.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

And why do you believe the Universe was potentially created?
Or that there is a need for a Creator at all of anything?
Or, above all, that a "creator" has anything to do with a God?
What God are you speaking off? Are you familiar with the simulation hypothesis? One that goes about a developed civilization simulating the past of the Universe in a computronium or several and you having simulations within simulations...for all that I care your poor definition of God can refer to an AGI or a transcendent Civilization or even a collection of them...so what does it mean to say the Creator when the very word "Create" implies things like Invention, Time, Cause and effect, all of them up for grabs on whether they are fundamental. Your definition of God doesn't qualify to anything convergent in a concept...again I have no idea what God means or what is the internal consistency of such concept. When you or anyone else presents me a WELL DEFINED CONCEPT OF GOD then I can be agnostic about it a believer or an atheist. Not before!
So far the God you and other people claim to believe disbelieve or be agnostic about means as much to me as spelling Brrrr Zzzzt!

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Neal here misses the point that all simulations are just as real as the "first world". A fractal pattern can argue further that the very concept of size on which a world fits into another is illusory.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

And why do you believe the Universe was potentially created?

Where did I ever say that I believe the Universe was potentially created.

I KNOW ******* WELL that this thing we humans call "the universe" MAY HAVE BEEN CREATED. It also MAY NEVER HAVE BEEN CREATED.

Get your head out of your ass if you are going to discuss serious stuff.

Quote:

Or that there is a need for a Creator at all of anything?

Show me where I said or inferred that "there is a need for a Creator."

SHOW ME.

It can be from here; from Abuzz, from any of the dozen fora where I have posted. I have tens of thousands of posts. Show me one where I have said or inferred that "there is a need for a Creator."

You won't...because I never have.

Quote:

Or, above all, that a "creator" has anything to do with a God?
What God are you speaking off? Are you familiar with the simulation hypothesis? One that goes about a developed civilization simulating the past of the Universe in a computronium or several and you having simulations within simulations...for all that I care your poor definition of God can refer to an AGI or a transcendent Civilization or even a collection of them...so what does it mean to say the Creator when the very word "Create" implies things like Invention, Time, Cause and effect, all of them up for grabs on whether they are fundamental. Your definition of God doesn't qualify to anything convergent in a concept...again I have no idea what God means or what is the internal consistency of such concept. When you or anyone else presents me a WELL DEFINED CONCEPT OF GOD then I can be agnostic about it a believer or an atheist. Not before!
So far the God you and other people claim to believe disbelieve or be agnostic about means as much to me as spelling Brrrr Zzzzt!

I never realized how full of **** you actually are, Albuquerque.

It is disappointing...but you are totally and completely full of ****.

Anything else you would like to pontificate about? Maybe a movie you'd like to critique.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc&ab_channel=StarTalk[/youtube]

Neil deGrasse Tyson describes himself as an Agnostic.

Albert Einstein was an Agnostic; Richard Feynman was an Agnostic; Stephen Hawking was an Agnostic.

And you, besides being full of **** are a...?

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Neal here misses the point that all simulations are just as real as the "first world". A fractal pattern can argue further that the very concept of size on which a world fits into another is illusory.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pmcrG7ZZKUc&ab_channel=StarTalk[/youtube]

My position:

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.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

WTF does quoting what Neal or Einstein believed or disbelieved or ignored has anything to do with a ill defined concept of God?

WTF "creator" engages in as a fundamental concept that lead you to a potential God? How do you make that extra step eh?

Look I don't give two farts about whether you get my argument...you are a statistical side corner...my argument is coherent for those who do grasp it and that is all that matters to me.

I DON'T KNOW what God intends to mean until I have a very concise circumscription and self consistent concept for the word. So far in a 2000 years of Theological debate to which I have paid some degree of attention I have yet to found one single attempt that makes sense.

So again, politely, stick your arrogance up your arse because I am not joking about it nor is this dissertation on the fracking meaningless pseudo concept of God a pastime.

Unlike you, I am aware that I don't know what I mean when I invoke any claim about God and that aside believing or disbelieving also includes agnosticism, one step further in the abstract chain you fail to achieve.

2 Replies

@Albuquerque,

The argument that one cannot be agnostic about an unintelligible concept should suffice to convince a smart youngster that I have a point here. So what else can be said...yes it is a sad situation. Failure to grasp always is!
(No motive to crack a bottle over a meaningless win, it is really sad)

0 Replies

Morality (a discussion)

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know