My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

@Leadfoot,

I have no problem with people claiming they do not know...for that matter deep down when words dissolve I do not know anything at all...my problem is on how people elaborate poorly on what is it exactly they do not know...I am very suspicious on the knowledge of what is it you do not know...the so called known unknowns, not even going to touch the unknown unknowns as those are pointless...my cynical approach is that such claim is already way above our head and our human forms of languaging...for that matter I am perhaps in greater degree of doubt then Frank ever was...

All I am trying to do here with the utmost sincerity and honesty is to have a grasp on how the problems at hand ought to be framed...I am exploring like everyone else. Is that a crime?

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Finally I can extract something of what is it that you do not know about...never heard it before from you, God the Creator...

I have posted that exact quote at least 50 times in this forum.

Quote:

Very well, my question to you is why not doubt the meaningfulness of the very concept of Creation...you have to doubt that before you have a frame to doubt about God as the Creator...

If you want to question the very concept of creation (with a capital C)...do it. Why do you suppose everyone should? In any case, I do question whether this thing we humans call "the universe" WAS created...or if it simply is and always was with the agency of "creation."

I do not know which it is...or if it is something else entirely.

But not knowing that does not preclude anything stated in my position above.

Quote:

My point is how do you arrive at the later doubt without questioning the very concept of Creation first? Why do you frame the measure stick at God the Creator before you question what Creation is to even mean?

Not sure of why you are baffled by what I am doing, but just stop being baffled. Nothing I am saying has any element of nonsense or irrationality to it.

Quote:

...let me be straight forward with you on why I insist in this. I do not really understand how is it wise to divide the realm of what is REAL in two.
I have extreme philosophical difficulty in accepting dividing what is Real in such a way that dualism is to be taken seriously...I can't for the life of me see how such system would communicate information.

Okay, thank you for sharing that.

But it is meaningless to me.

My take on the issue as stated above stands. If you want to question any element, please do. But if you are going to suggest that my even considering it is defective in some way...we don't have much of chance of getting anywhere.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

I don't know how to please you Frank this is how framing questions work you build upon already build up blocks...I see nothing wrong with going one step back to dissolve the problematic on how you framed God as the creator.

Obviously no one is forcing you to not question that kind of God...you are "free" to do as you please. My question was and stands how did you arrive at the knowledge necessary to raise that SPECIFIC kind of doubt?
It seems to me this is a perfectly legitimate question to pose to anyone framing this problem the way you did. For that matter it works with everything else really...

I remember talking to you about axioms being fundamental to frame doubts long ago...perhaps you have forgot the many talks we already had...I didn't.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

I don't know how to please you Frank this is how framing questions work you build upon already build up blocks...I see nothing wrong with going one step back to dissolve the problematic on how you framed God as the creator.

I didn't "frame god as the creator."

I simply said that when I use the word "god" in the piece describing my take on the issue...I mean, and I quote: 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'...IF SUCH AN ENTITY OR ENTITIES ACTUALLY EXIST.)

I am simply explaining what I mean in my position.

Quote:

Obviously no one is forcing you to not question that kind of God...you are "free" to do as you please. My question was and stands how did you arrive at the knowledge necessary to raise that SPECIFIC kind of doubt?
It seems to me this is a perfectly legitimate question to pose to anyone framing this problem the way you did. For that matter it works with everything else really...I remember talking to you about axioms being fundamental to frame doubts long ago...perhaps you have forgot the many talks we already had...

Sorry about this, Aluquerque, but I think you are playing some kind of intellectual game here...and it just does not attract me at all.

On the question of the existence of a GOD...just about everyone (except you) seems to be talking about a creator god. I UNDERSTAND THAT A GOD MAY BE SOMETHING ELSE...OR NOTHING AT ALL. But that is not what I am addressing. Actually, I am addressing the question, "How did all this come about?"...waving one's hands at the vast thing we humans call "the universe."

If you want to consider yourself as conceiving of the issue on a much wider (perhaps, greater or more intellectual) plane...fine with me. I just do not see it that way.

Like you, I feel once words evaporate, I feel I do not know much at all.

Fact is, no matter the plane...I DO NOT KNOW. And whether I explain my not knowing starting at a point you think insufficiently regressed...is irrelevant to me.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Please stop with the ultra capitals for authority sake. It is not polite.

Second I did not force you to answer any question, you do as you please.

Third I did not claim any specific God is more worth asking about then any other typology. I asked you about the one you gave me for reference with a very small foot note in miniscule letters...The Creator...If you had given me any other attribute then I would be asking the exact same thing about that other potential attribute you chose to define your terms about God.

Finally NO I am not playing any games to win a stupid debate...the better you can enlighten me, or I towards you, the better for both of us!
Hope you are having a nice day!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

I am very suspicious on the knowledge of what is it you do not know...

I confess that I am not sure how to parse that sentence.

What exactly is it that I have said that I don’t know, that you are suspicious of? Are you saying I do in fact know something and I’m saying I don’t?

1 Reply

@Leadfoot,

You cannot frame an unknown without a shadow or a silhouette of what is it that you hypothesise that you are not sure about...there is nothing odd in this.

If you say you are not sure about something you better tell me what that something is to be thought as an hypothetical!

Rumsfeld called it the known unknowns, things that we can think about as hypotheticals but that we are not sure about...being so tightly defensive and refusing to disclose one single attribute while using an heavy baggage word as God is inadmissible in a straight forward honest debate...and the fact that I have to explain and clarify the obvious is sad in itself.

1 Reply

Put in the most simple terms such that anyone can perfectly understand, if someone says to me I am not sure if X exists It is compulsory immediately that one asks what X are you talking about!

1 Reply

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Please stop with the ultra capitals for authority sake. It is not polite.

WHEN DID THAT COME INTO EXISTENCE?

Quote:

Second I did not force you to answer any question, you do as you please.

Third I did not claim any specific God is more worth asking about then any other typology. I asked you about the one you gave me for reference with a very small foot note in miniscule letters...The Creator...If you had given me any other attribute then I would be asking the exact same thing about that other potential attribute you chose to define your terms about God.

Finally NO I am not playing any games to win a stupid debate...the better you can enlighten me, or I towards you, the better for both of us!
Hope you are having a nice day!

I suspect you are playing a game...a game that you suppose makes you look like a more erudite thinker than the audience you suppose is watching you at your play.

I may be wrong, but I think not.

0 Replies

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

Put in the most simple terms such that anyone can perfectly understand, if someone says to me I am not sure if X exists It is compulsory immediately that one asks what X are you talking about!

I am not sure if "what we humans call 'the universe'" was created or not. If it was created, I do not know what created it, but I am willing to call whatever created it "GOD." (Which accounts for what I put in small text in my post at https://able2know.org/topic/384507-92#post-7310182 )

The nonsense that one has to further describe what someone does not know...is just part of your "I am a great intellectual" game.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

No comment dunno where to start Frank seriously...you are the one looking bad on the picture now, I don't have to explain thinking people what has happened here, they can read and infer or deduce their own conclusions!
Let me be blunt if I ever gave a frack about that over the last decade I would go with the flow taking populist views left and right, never play Devil's advocate in any topic and would settle my English grammar right before I posted. I was having fun thinking we would have a prolific straight forward debate I can now see I was wrong. I have nothing else to say except that I admit my adamant stupid naivety! Have a nice day!

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Quote:

If you say you are not sure about something you better tell me what that something is to be thought as an hypothetical!

On this subject I have not said I was 'not sure about something'. On this subject, my conversation is 'yea' or 'nay'. I would appreciate if you did the same.

I have said 'It is obvious that that all biological life including us was the result of an intelligent actor.' There is no expression of uncertainty there.

I have said 'I do not know the origin of that creator. That is an absolute negative. Again, NO UNCERTAINTY EXPRESSED THERE.

Sorry for the raised voice but misdirection is always frustrating.

Again, I am waiting for your counter to my premise. You can criticize mine all you want afterward. That is how formal debate works. You said you wanted one.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Leadfoot wrote:

I have said 'It is obvious that that all biological life including us was the result of an intelligent actor.' There is no expression of uncertainty there.

It's not obvious though. If it were obvious then everybody would be of that opinion.

Why not tell us why you believe it's obvious, what the indicators are.

That seems more worthy of debate than what god is made of.

2 Replies

@Leadfoot,

Short and direct I've answered this previously...when you step the problem of complexity regarding the evolution of Bios up to God as the best possible explanation, the analogy of the watch maker, you are not solving it you are making it worse. The same argument applies to the complexity of God.

If your axiom is that the complexity of God does not require an explanation because it is a brut fact I can say the same about the Universe and save one step. The top down approach is the same. There solved.

if you know anything about Metaphysics you will now have to escalate your defence with the argument "God is not within spacetime thus it does not require a chain of cause and effect a justification"...then we shall debate how much sense makes a personal God outside spacetime...might as well be speaking of a super rock and call it whatever name you fancy the most.

1 Reply

@Albuquerque,

Albuquerque wrote:

No comment dunno where to start Frank seriously...you are the one looking bad on the picture now, I don't have to explain thinking people what has happened here, they can read and infer or deduce their own conclusions!
Let me be blunt if I ever gave a frack about that over the last decade I would go with the flow taking populist views left and right, never play Devil's advocate in any topic and would settle my English grammar right before I posted. I was having fun thinking we would have a prolific straight forward debate I can now see I was wrong. I have nothing else to say except that I admit my adamant stupid naivety! Have a nice day!

I would LOVE to have a polite, rational, intelligent discussion of this issue here in this forum with you, Albuquerque...and have had such discussions with others here on several occasions during the last 20 years.

But you seem incapable of doing so. Each of your discussions on this issue quickly degrades from a discussion of the issue...to some sort of ham-fisted attempt to say, "See how much more intelligent I am than you."

Yeah, you can suggest that I am being paranoid...or some other cloying diffusion, but it is so.

I gave a well-described take on the question of the existence of gods...and a decent description of what I mean when I speak of "the existence of gods." It was an agnostic take...I acknowledge that.

And the only thing you can come up with is that my description of what I mean when I speak of gods in that discussion...does not meet your standards???

WTF?

If you want to have a meaningful discussion (you may not because my take will always be a variation on "I do not know if any such god exists"...and I strongly suspect that you do not either)...let us have one.

2 Replies

@izzythepush,

izzythepush wrote:

Leadfoot wrote:

I have said 'It is obvious that that all biological life including us was the result of an intelligent actor.' There is no expression of uncertainty there.

It's not obvious though. If it were obvious then everybody would be of that opinion.

Why not tell us why you believe it's obvious, what the indicators are.

That seems more worthy of debate than what god is made of.

I agree. I have no idea why Leadfoot (or anyone) supposes it is obvious that an intelligent actor is necessary to explain ANYTHING about life...or for that matter, existence. That, in fact, is part and parcel of my take on the issue.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

If he could tell us what lead him to that conclusion it would be a great help.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

And there we go again...I don't want to have to correct you but you do not give me a chance to not to.

Say I make watches I am a watch maker I create watches that does not make me a God.

Second and I reiterate in order to counter any potential argument you make for Agnosticism I have to ask you what IS IT that you are agnostic about?

You've said in a very small foot note God the Creator I suppose of all living Beings, you also said to be fair of any Gods, by which I suppose Zeus the Flying Spaghetti Monster and all the others...

Now high from your seat of doubt please tell me what do I have to work with about investigating your declared agnosticism if I don't know what defines a God for you and if that definition is sound to start with?

Subjectively I can use the name "God" to talk about worms or whatever else I decide I want to use the name on, but if I want to speak to anyone else I better clarify my terms and define when I use the word God or Gods to explain either the particular or the Plural of the group such that people can question me about anything and that includes how I did arrive at a sceptic or agnostic position.

Again if this is not clear to you and you devolve the debate on a fallacious accusation that I am being purposefully difficult I am left without tools to engage with you!

For "God the creator", check my reply to Leadfoot!

1 Reply

My documentaries, the documentaries that I recommend

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know