In the mood for a fight? I am!

Anyway, Frank, I bore easily, so here's the point.

There's just as much evidence for a god as there is for an invisible incorporeal tail.
The whole notion of an incorporeal invisible tail is ludicrous and silly. That's why we don't believe it. I don't know what YOU believe, but I go even further and BELIEVE IT'S NOT THERE. Not because we know its not there... as you might like to hear me say: It's probably impossible to know anything at all. There may be some facts you can derive from some weird ways of looking at it, like it's a fact that I think that something... or whatever... but for the most part, there is nothing you can be sure of with absolute certainty... not that you are reading this, nothing (except maybe those pointless exceptions).

So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

Do you believe in facts, frank?

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

As usual, long boring post that says very little.

Don't be so hard on yourself. True...your posts say very little...but they are seldom boring and you seldom have the discipline to make them long enough to be adequate.

Quote:

And you can't bring yourself to post a short answer to my simple question.
And I don't even know what you expect me to do here:

Quote:
So...suppose you provide quotes from me which support the premise upon which this...thing...is based.

Confusing language. I'm not being obstinate... I really think that is confusing language.

Bin...try to get into focus.

You are basing your question on the following statement you made to me:

Quote:

You also have implied that you believe anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong. But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.

Just provide me a quote that shows me saying that!

What the hell is so confusing about that?

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
mesquite wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Quote:
Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Not necessarily so!

If a parent, for instance, is able to correct evil in his/her child (let's say by chaining the kid in the basement for the rest of its life)...but doesn't do it...

...can the parent properly be called malevolent for not doing so?

The riddle is cute...and contains some gems...but it has simplistic and illogical aspects also. And this is one of 'em. And unfortunately for Epicurus, it destroys the thrust of the rest of the riddle.

Don't forget that Epicurus was using malevolent in context of omnipotency, something that your analogy leaves out.

No analogy is an exact duplicate of what it is analogizing...otherwise it would not be an analogy.

In any case, Epicurus assumes that if a God is able, but not willing to stop evil...the God is perforce malevolent.

He is wrong in that assumption.

That was the point of my analogy.

C'mon Frank, your analogy didn't prevent evil, it just changed the recipient (chaining the kid in the basement for the rest of his life). I see nothing wrong with Epicurus claiming an omnipotent god to be malevolent for not preventing evil. The key here is prevention, not transference or substitution.

It certainly prevented whatever evil the kid was up to in the hypothetical.

In any case...a God could be able, but unwilling, to stop evil by transference. Epicurus was wrong in saying the God would perforce be malevolent if he didn't.

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Keep in mind...you are going to provide quotes from me which imply that I believe something.

ANYTHING!

I know that I shouldn't butt in here...

Don't be silly, Mesquite, you are very welcome to comment on anything I ever say.

You present what you have to say very clearly...and although I often disagree, I always enjoy your reasoning.

Quote:

... but it should be easy to find some quotes where you at least infer that you believe George Bush is a goddam moron. Yeah, I know that you have plenty of unambiguous evidence to take it beyond a belief in your mind, but does that really make it true?

Well...it doesn't necessarily make it "true"...but it also doesn't necessarily make it a "belief" either.

Right?

I have opinions and I make estimates...which is to say, I make guesses.

Not all guesses are beliefs...although, all beliefs are guesses...most often in the context in which we are currently dealing, they are guesses that are being disguised with the use of the word "beliefs."

Bin is asking about my "beliefs" or inferences of "beliefs."

I don't ever disguise my guesses.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

Anyway, Frank, I bore easily, so here's the point.

There's just as much evidence for a god as there is for an invisible incorporeal tail.
The whole notion of an incorporeal invisible tail is ludicrous and silly.

Yes it is...and I cannot help but wonder why you would willing to stoop to such silliness.

Quote:

... That's why we don't believe it.

No it is not.

Mostly, you people who do not "believe" in things (which is to say, you "believe" they don't exist)...believe the way you do on "invisible incorporeal tail"...because they never come up in conversation.

Take a pole.

One hundred people chosen at large from on the street passers by:

The question: Do you "believe" in invisible incorporeal tails...and see what kind of answers you get.

Quote:

I don't know what YOU believe...

Well since I have told you several times that I do not do any of this "believing" nonsense...you should. Try to keep up, Bin.

Quote:

..., but I go even further and BELIEVE IT'S NOT THERE.

I will assume you meant to write "...I believe you believe it is not there." (You are careless with your phrasing, Bin!)

No, I do not "believe" it is not there.

I don't give it any thought at all.

I recognize it as a sign of frustration and desparation on your part...and simply ignore it.

Quote:

Not because we know its not there... as you might like to hear me say: It's probably impossible to know anything at all. There may be some facts you can derive from some weird ways of looking at it, like it's a fact that I think that something... or whatever... but for the most part, there is nothing you can be sure of with absolute certainty... not that you are reading this, nothing (except maybe those pointless exceptions).

Well...maybe you can be long and boring and write stuff that says nothing...after all!

Quote:

So I say that there is no god.

Yes you do.

Quote:

I say it as a fact.

Yes, you do disguise the fact that it is simply a guess.

Quote:

I am not sure it is true.

Yes, we are in agreement on that.

Quote:

But it is a fact.

Well it might be a fact...but you are in no position to assert that it is.

And that is what I am dealing with here...your assertion...not whether or not it is a fact. I don't know if it is a fact or not...just like you.

Seems to me this is a fairly uncomplicated, straight-forward concept that you just seem unable to conprehend. And if you cannot comprehend anything as easy as this...why on earth are you trying to deal with things even more complicated...like whether or not we can "know" anything?

Quote:

Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

Really! Boy...once you decide to kid yourself...you sure are a bulldog!

Quote:

Do you believe in facts, frank?

Nope! I accept facts...if the facts are known to me. Why would anyone have to "believe" in a fact...if it is known to them.

0 Replies

I realize I'm jumping in late, but I think I can clear up a few things.

Binny: Frank and I have had a number of arguments over "belief" and his problems with it, and I finally realized that since Frank attaches a religious connotation to the word "belief" (and rightly so) that, since he's an agnostic, he shouldn't use the word to describe himself. It's part of the process of debating to discover how other people use certain ambiguous words, so there is a need for precision.

I'm not sure the exact problem you have with quotes, so I can only describe why I think they're necessary. often in debating, there are a number of points made in very quick succession. The benfit of quotations is to isolate each point and address them individually, which Frank excells at. This also enables easier debating, since repliers don't have to waste time trying to go back and find what you're referring to. I'm not saying "you suck as a debater if you don't"...but I tend to agree with Frank on this issue.

Quote:

Anyway, Frank, I bore easily, so here's the point.

I hope this is just in the spirit of "picking a fight", since you've been markedly more cordial to me in our discussions.

While normally I would put a notice telling you both to be nice, this is a brawl, so I think I'll just watch and enjoy.

Now, to the topic:

Quote:

So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

This is fallacious to the extreme, binny. A fact, by definition, you know is true. There are some finer points dealing with subjectivity that might make facts a bit uncertain...but for the most part(about 99.99% of the time), facts are knowable. Therefore, to say "there is no god" "as a fact" then to follow it up with "I am not sure it is true" defeats itself.

Other than these points, though, I'm following the posts with great enjoyment. Keep up the good work, gentlemen.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

binnyboy wrote:
As usual, long boring post that says very little.

Don't be so hard on yourself. True...your posts say very little...but they are seldom boring and you seldom have the discipline to make them long enough to be adequate.

*Snicker* I love it. :wink: Laughing

"I know you are, but what am I?" indeed.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Quote:
binnyboy wrote:
As usual, long boring post that says very little.

Don't be so hard on yourself. True...your posts say very little...but they are seldom boring and you seldom have the discipline to make them long enough to be adequate.

*Snicker* I love it. :wink:
"I know you are, but what am I?" indeed.

And I had a picture of Peewee Herman saying that very thing in mind...as I typed my words. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

It certainly prevented whatever evil the kid was up to in the hypothetical.

In any case...a God could be able, but unwilling, to stop evil by transference. Epicurus was wrong in saying the God would perforce be malevolent if he didn't.

One more time... Epicurus said that a god that was able to prevent EVIL (not just an evil act, but Evil PERIOD) but unwilling to do so was malevolent.

Sounds logical and reasonable to me.

Epicurus was a Greek philosopher (ca. 341-270 B.C.E.). Therefore it is useless to quibble about his being right or wrong since much depends on translation and definitions.

As Edgar would say, Frank you are flat ass wrong. :wink:

0 Replies

Frank: HA! Laughing

On topic, though, there does seem to be a flaw in your reasoning, Frank. As Mesquite said, "stopping evil" doesn't refer to punishment, but total eradication of evil impulses. The refusal to do that is malevolent. Perhaps you just misunderstood that part, or there's some obscure point you'll bring up to trounce us all! either way, I can't wait. This is fun.

0 Replies

I think I'll leave that part alone for now...although I think Epicurus was flat ass wrong.

0 Replies

Ooops!

Forgot the :wink:

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

You are basing your question on the following statement you made to me:

Quote:
You also have implied that you believe anyone who believes anything particular about a god will have some logical point wrong. But you believe that thinking there is NO god is equally fallable.

No, I'm not.
Just asking.
And even if I did base my question on that (which I didn't), I'm not now. I'm just asking. And you don't care to answer.

Frank Apisa wrote:

binnyboy wrote:
Anyway, Frank, I bore easily, so here's the point.

There's just as much evidence for a god as there is for an invisible incorporeal tail.
The whole notion of an incorporeal invisible tail is ludicrous and silly.

Yes it is...and I cannot help but wonder why you would willing to stoop to such silliness.

Well, frank, then you missed a very simple point, and if you had quoted THE NEXT SENTENCE along with these instead of selctively choosing sentences, you would've shown that yourself:

binnyboy wrote:

There's just as much evidence for a god as there is for an invisible incorporeal tail.
The whole notion of an incorporeal invisible tail is ludicrous and silly. That's why we don't believe it. I don't know what YOU believe, but I go even further and BELIEVE IT'S NOT THERE.

Quote:

Well since I have told you several times that I do not do any of this "believing" nonsense...you should.

Ah, but here is a case where I don't have a belief... I don't BELIEVE you. (I don't think you are lying, but I think that you are mistaken)

Quote:

I will assume you meant to write "...I believe you believe it is not there." (You are careless with your phrasing, Bin!)

No, I do not "believe" it is not there.

I meant exactly what I said.

binnyboy wrote:

I don't know what YOU believe, but I go even further and BELIEVE IT'S NOT THERE.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Do you believe in facts, frank?

Nope! I accept facts...if the facts are known to me. Why would anyone have to "believe" in a fact...if it is known to them.

What my question meant (and what I assumed you'd understand, and which maybe you did but are pretending not to) is,

Do you believe in the existence of facts?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I did not mention anything I "believe." If you have something I said to which you want to make reference...please do so with a quote.

How do you KNOW you didn't? Very ironic, don't you think? That the very statement that you did not mention anything you believe is stated as a FACT, not a GUESS. You sure you didn't miss something? How can you be so SURE?

Please do not quote the following, except in full:
Look how low I've sunk, arguing in quotes.

Hey, Taliesin.
Yeah we're just busting each others' balls.
You said,

Quote:

This is fallacious to the extreme, binny. A fact, by definition, you know is true.

But I say we don't know anything for sure (except maybe some identity stuff, like I exist or something, but which Frank would have me not acknowledge because it's too boring). So the word is pointless if we say it's anything we know for sure. Because there's no such thing except MAYBE those dumb exceptions. If you want an example, say something you think is a fact. I'll say why it might not be a fact (unless it's a dumb identity statement).

BOTH MEN BACK TO YOUR RESPECTIVE CORNERS!

0 Replies

haha all your posts came and went while I was typing mine up

0 Replies

Binnyboy wrote:

Quote:

Hey, Taliesin.
Yeah we're just busting each others' balls.

Glad to hear it. :wink:

Quote:

But I say we don't know anything for sure (except maybe some identity stuff, like I exist or something, but which Frank would have me not acknowledge because it's too boring). So the word is pointless if we say it's anything we know for sure. Because there's no such thing except MAYBE those dumb exceptions. If you want an example, say something you think is a fact. I'll say why it might not be a fact (unless it's a dumb identity statement).

As I said,

Quote:

There are some finer points dealing with subjectivity that might make facts a bit uncertain...but for the most part(about 99.99% of the time), facts are knowable. Therefore, to say "there is no god" "as a fact" then to follow it up with "I am not sure it is true" defeats itself.

I agree that we don't know anything with 100% certainty, but if you're going to go in that direction, then your assertion that "There isn't a God" would be even more subject to that rule, since we can't ever know that, even in our subjective spheres.

Frank: C'mon, tell me your epicurus reasoning! Laughing

0 Replies

Binny

This conversation has now gotten so goddam confusingI honestly don't know whether you are serious pursuing the discussion or just playing some kind of game.

Let me pay you the respect of supposing you are being seriousbut undisciplined.

Here is my position vis-à-vis what I know about Ultimate REALITY questions - and what I am (or am not) willing to guess about them. And for the purposes of simplification, I will limit the Ultimate REALITY questions to just one: Is there a Godor are there no gods?

I do know if there is a Godor if there are no gods.

I do not see anywhere near enough unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in either directionand because of that, I choose not to guess in either direction.

I think the people guessing that there is a Godand the people guessing that there are no godsand the less disciplined people like you who assert authoritatively in either directionare doing so gratuitously, simply because it suits their purposes.

I've never had a theists offer me any kind of reasonable evidence upon which to base a guess in the theistic directionand I've never had an atheist offer me any kind of reasonable evidence upon which to base a guess in that direction either.

Occasionally, when discussing this issue with people who assert there are no godsI am confronted with scenarios like the one you presented with your "invisible corporeal tail" question. One of my favorites was: Are there purple CPA's working on one of the moons of Saturn?

Normally, I give this nonsense the respect it deserveswhich is to say, I ignore it.

The people who assert there are no gods then go through the same anti-intellectual mumbo jumbo you are going through.

And after allowing them to stew for a whileI eventually deal with the sillinesseven though I feel embarrassed to have to do so in a discussion with supposedly serious people.

So let it be with you.

I will shortly dispose of this banalitybut first, I want to give you an opportunity to comment on any of the preliminary comments I've made here in this post.

If you doand I hope you doI will deal with your concerns before going on to the disposal discussion. (Patience, by the way...is a virtue.)

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

This conversation has now gotten so goddam confusing

Frank Apisa wrote:

I do know if there is a Godor if there are no gods.

Yes, confusing. :wink:

0 Replies

mesquite wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
This conversation has now gotten so goddam confusing

Frank Apisa wrote:
I do know if there is a Godor if there are no gods.

Yes, confusing. :wink:

I want to be sure this is understood.

I do not know if there is a God.

I do not know if there are no gods.

If there is something confusing about that...please let me know, because it is integral to everything else.

0 Replies

Well, Taliesin, put it this way:

I'm just as sure that there is no god as I am that there are no purple CPAs on Saturn (I like that one better). Not completely sure in either case. But sure enough for it to be a fact. It passes your 99.99% requirement.

And frank, you made a typo. That's what he's laughing about.

And no, carry on (even though I do object to purple CPAs and immaterial invisible tails being called anti-intellectual. They are just as legitimate in conversation as gods.)

And what do you think about the FACT YOU ASSERTED? YOU FACT ASSERTER!

0 Replies

I did make a typo.

Damn...just as I was thinking I'd get out of 2004 without even one error.

Damn!

0 Replies

Okaylet's get to it. And I will take it slowlyin short bitsjust to give you an opportunity to deal with any aspects you would like to deal with.

Bin, here is the question as you first proposed it:

Quote:

Well, Frank, let me ask you this:
Do you don't have a tail?
Hint: according to your previous argument, your answer, for consistence to apply to your answers, should be "I don't know".

After all, just because there's no evidence you have a tail doesn't mean you don't have one.
Do you have an invisible, incorporeal tail that fades in and out of corporeality every 90 years?

You are correct, BinI do not know that I do not have an invisible, incorporeal tail that fades in and out of corporeality every 90 years.

Like you, I would be wiling to guess that I do not.

You then went on to say:

Quote:

So I say that there is no god. I say it as a fact. I am not sure it is true. But it is a fact. Just as I say I have no invisible incorporeal tail. I am not sure that is true either. But it is a fact.

Both may be factseither may be a factand neither may be a fact.

It seems logical, for instance, to assume that either a) there is a God or b) there is no God.

One of those two choicesmore than likely, is a fact.

I have no problem with thatnor have I ever disputed it.

My contention, as I have mentioned several timesdeals with you asserting that you know which is the fact.

Actuallyyou really muddy the waters by acknowledging that you truly do not knowbut you then go on to infer that you do by asserting that (b) is the fact.

What part of this do you not understand?

0 Replies

In the mood for a fight? I am!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know