In the mood for a fight? I am!

Einherjar wrote:

This seems to me to be the crux of the current argument.

binnyboy wrote:
binnyboy wrote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I do [not] 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.

What makes you choose to guess you have no tail? What unambiguous evidence upon which to make a reasonable, meaningful guess in that direction do you have?

to which you cleverly responded:

Frank Apisa wrote:
The unambiguous evidence I have upon which I would base my guess is... that the very first time I ever heard such an absurd idea being proposedwas right here in this threadby you, a guy I could see was getting desperate to back up his atheistic guesswork with nonsense proposed as intellectual wherewithal.

I evaluated the evidence of whether or not this absurd out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense was actually a revelation of some sort or just childish prattleand came up with a guess that I think is justified.

to which I very honestly and openly inquired:

binnyboy wrote:
So, let me see if I get this right. Is the following a correct description of what you think?

You don't have a tail is a guess you can make because I just then made it up; I do not claim it was revealed to me. If I did claim it was revealed to me (and you believed me)(or guessed that I was not intentionally lying, I guess I should say, since you don't BELIEVE anything), you might have to either come up with another reason to guess I am mistaken or, as you do with the gods case, refuse to draw a conclusion about whether I am mistaken (or agree with me which would not happen).
There is not a god is a guess that you cannot make because some people claim that there is a god and they seriously claim that they have had a revelation of this.

Is this an accurate conclusion? (I am trying very hard to say something in the spirit of your thoughts.)

What I'm reading here is Frank asserting as a fact the non-existence of an article of "out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense" which is consistent with all observed evidence, namely an invisible incorporal tail attatched to himself. This assertion basically makes Frank an atailist.

So, what evidence does Frank provide to back up his atailism? None, he merely emphasised the lack of evidence supporting the tailist possition. He gave a reason to dismiss the testemony of he who presented the concept of an invisible tail as evidence.

So, why then is Frank not an atheist, asserting that god does not exist based upon the lack of evidence supporting the existance of gods, when he is an atailist, asserting the non existence of invisible tails based on the exact same evidence? It would appear that Frank considers the testemony of theists sufficiently convincing to justify agnosticism over atheism which would have been his possition if no evidence existed at all. Is this correct Frank?

No it is notand I will explain why.

You wrote:

Quote:

What I'm reading here is Frank asserting as a fact the non-existence of an article of "out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense" which is consistent with all observed evidence, namely an invisible incorporal tail attatched to himself. This assertion basically makes Frank an atailist.

I am not asserting that at all.

I am simply saying that based on the evidence (which is more than whether or not I can see something)I AM WILLING TO GUESS that I do not have such a tail. My guess, for the record, includes the notion that it makes more sense for me to suppose (guess) that Binny just made up that hypothetical for its utilitarian value for his arguments...than to suppose he has some insider information about invisible tails. The invisible tail tale is, in short, an obvious invention.

The "possiblity of gods" as an explanation of REALITY...is not that obvious to me...not that obvious at all.

In any caseI am NOT asserting that I do not have an invisible tail as a fact. I am merely saying that based on the evidence I have at handit seems more reasonable for me to guess it was just something Binny made up on the spur of the moment rather than that I actually have an invisible tail. (Read my earlier remarks on this and you will see that I clearly identified my position vis-a-vis the invisible tail as guesswork, not insider knowledge or fact.)

I do not see evidence of that kind in the case of the question: "Is there a God?"

I honestly do not.

Nowif just "absence of visual evidence" were enough for a reasoned guess in questions of that sortI would be in the position of "guessing" that there is absolutely no other life, intelligent or otherwise, anywhere else in the universe.

I have absolutely no visual evidence that there isand using the reasoning you are using here (and which seems to be stuck in Binny's brain)guessing there is no other life elsewhere would be reasonable.

But that is not the way I guessand I see absolutely no lack of consistency in my position.

As for your comment:

Quote:

So, why then is Frank not an atheist, asserting that god does not exist based upon the lack of evidence supporting the existance of gods, when he is an atailist, asserting the non existence of invisible tails based on the exact same evidence?

Please refer to my explanation above.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

And I tend to believe that love/affinity is one of the many tools evolution uses to selectively breed members of a species

This doesn't sound right. Have you not loved anything that didn't have anything to do with evolution?

binnyboy wrote:

I also think lenin was a pretty swell guy

Now how is an affinity of this nature a tool of selective breeding?

I guess love/affinity (even in your own experience) is more than what you are ready to admit here. And that may be out of love of your dear atheist belief which also may not have anything to do with breeding.

0 Replies

Let me try to get this straight.

Frank wrote:

Quote:

What I'm reading here is Frank asserting as a fact the non-existence of an article of "out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense" which is consistent with all observed evidence, namely an invisible incorporal tail attatched to himself. This assertion basically makes Frank an atailist.

I am not asserting that at all.

Alright sorry, I think it was the refference to "unambiguous evidence" that made me mistake it for an assertion.

Frank wrote:

I am simply saying that based on the evidence (which is more than whether or not I can see something)I AM WILLING TO GUESS that I do not have such a tail. My guess, for the record, includes the notion that it makes more sense for me to suppose (guess) that Binny just made up that hypothetical for its utilitarian value for his arguments...than to suppose he has some insider information about invisible tails. The invisible tail tale is, in short, an obvious invention.

Do you think it is likely that the concept of gods is not also invented by a human? To me it seems quite obvious that the religions currently trumpeted on this planet, as well as ones trumpeted in the past, are mere collections of memes.

Quote:

The "possiblity of gods" as an explanation of REALITY...is not that obvious to me...not that obvious at all.

Would gods really explain anything?

Quote:

In any caseI am NOT asserting that I do not have an invisible tail as a fact. I am merely saying that based on the evidence I have at handit seems more reasonable for me to guess it was just something Binny made up on the spur of the moment rather than that I actually have an invisible tail. (Read my earlier remarks on this and you will see that I clearly identified my position vis-a-vis the invisible tail as guesswork, not insider knowledge or fact.)

Alright, dropping assertions, can I get you to guess that the same thing applies to gods?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Let me try to get this straight.

Frank wrote:
Quote:

What I'm reading here is Frank asserting as a fact the non-existence of an article of "out-of-the-blue batch of nonsense" which is consistent with all observed evidence, namely an invisible incorporal tail attatched to himself. This assertion basically makes Frank an atailist.

I am not asserting that at all.

Alright sorry, I think it was the refference to "unambiguous evidence" that made me mistake it for an assertion.

No problem.

Quote:

Frank wrote:
I am simply saying that based on the evidence (which is more than whether or not I can see something)I AM WILLING TO GUESS that I do not have such a tail. My guess, for the record, includes the notion that it makes more sense for me to suppose (guess) that Binny just made up that hypothetical for its utilitarian value for his arguments...than to suppose he has some insider information about invisible tails. The invisible tail tale is, in short, an obvious invention.

Do you think it is likely that the concept of gods is not also invented by a human?

I think it very VERY VERY likely that the gods already popular (or that have been popular in the past) are inventions of humans...and it is quite possible the very concept of gods is a human invention also.

But that does not mean the explanation for REALITY does not include something godlike.

I HONESTLY do not know what REALITY is...and I am not willing, on the skimpy evidence available, to make a guess.

Quote:

To me it seems quite obvious that the religions currently trumpeted on this planet, as well as ones trumpeted in the past, are mere collections of memes.

Amen! We are one on this, Ein. In fact, some seem more like jokes than gods.

But I think (cogito)...and it appears as though I exist...and I might be the only thing that does exist...and all of you out there and everything else out there...may be something I have manufactured (and hid from myself) for my entertainment....which would make me EVERYTHING...or God.

I HONESTLY do not know...and considering the evidence available...I have trouble with people who guess in either direction and then make a big thing of that guess...because it might just as well be based on a coin toss.

Quote:

Quote:
The "possiblity of gods" as an explanation of REALITY...is not that obvious to me...not that obvious at all.

Would gods really explain anything?

Well, for many years, I would have answered your question with a loud "Absolutely not!" Gods are not needed to explain anything.

But of late...when I consider the that I seem to exist...that there is this thing called EXISTENCE...I am not willing to rule out the notion of godness of some kind...as an explantion of my personal existence. (Not this God made me bullshyt...but something deeper than that.)

Although based on the evidence I have at my disposal...I think the notion of God...as expressed by the religions currently in fashion...is laughable.

Quote:

Quote:
In any caseI am NOT asserting that I do not have an invisible tail as a fact. I am merely saying that based on the evidence I have at handit seems more reasonable for me to guess it was just something Binny made up on the spur of the moment rather than that I actually have an invisible tail. (Read my earlier remarks on this and you will see that I clearly identified my position vis-a-vis the invisible tail as guesswork, not insider knowledge or fact.)

Alright, dropping assertions, can I get you to guess that the same thing applies to gods?

No, I cannot!

I cannot spell my position out any more clearly...and I do not see how anyone can fault me for being inconsistent on that account.

But I enjoy the way you discuss things, Ein...and please do not drop this conversation if you do not understand my position completely. I do want to explain it so that you understand everything I am saying. And of course, I want to give you as much time to question the logic of my position. (It helps me!)

0 Replies

Approximately how much confidence do you have in the guess that you do not have an invisible tail?

Frank Apisa wrote:

I HONESTLY do not know...and considering the evidence available...I have trouble with people who guess in either direction and then make a big thing of that guess...because it might just as well be based on a coin toss.

You have departed from the position I perceive as most common among agnostics, that in the absence of evidence all plausible hypotheses are equally likely. Yet while you are prepared to make a guess that a pice of conjecture drawn out of the blue does not match up with reality, you evaluate the probability of the existence of gods to be somewhere around 50 %, and refuse to guess. This you do without lending any weight to the testimony of believers, and without presenting any other evidence.

So, what makes gods more likely than some random piece of conjecture?
(you've tried to explain that later in your post, so no need to reply to this)

And why did you land on 50% as your evaluation of the probability? You have admitted to evaluating the probability somehow since you have distanced yourself from the 50 - 50 until evidence is presented position.

You wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
The "possiblity of gods" as an explanation of REALITY...is not that obvious to me...not that obvious at all.

Would gods really explain anything?

Well, for many years, I would have answered your question with a loud "Absolutely not!" Gods are not needed to explain anything.

But of late...when I consider the that I seem to exist...that there is this thing called EXISTENCE...I am not willing to rule out the notion of goodness of some kind...as an explanation of my personal existence. (Not this God made me bullshit...but something deeper than that.)

This leaves me feeling like a supersized questionmark. Is it possible for you to explain what gods, or "something godlike" would explain?

If you cant explain the explaining then I would venture this is just an emotional attachment, and not rational thought.

As far as I can tell we have a package of things which seem to exist, and I fail to see how adding "god" to the package helps explain why the package exists.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Although based on the evidence I have at my disposal...I think the notion of God...as expressed by the religions currently in fashion...is laughable.

This at least we can agree on.

Quote:

Quote:
In any caseI am NOT asserting that I do not have an invisible tail as a fact. I am merely saying that based on the evidence I have at handit seems more reasonable for me to guess it was just something Binny made up on the spur of the moment rather than that I actually have an invisible tail. (Read my earlier remarks on this and you will see that I clearly identified my position vis-a-vis the invisible tail as guesswork, not insider knowledge or fact.)

Alright, dropping assertions, can I get you to guess that the same thing applies to gods?

No, I cannot!

I cannot spell my position out any more clearly...and I do not see how anyone can fault me for being inconsistent on that account.[/QUOTE]

I will fault you on that account unless you can identify something a "god" would help explain, or come up with some other justification for considering one article of out of the blue conjecture more likely to be real than another.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But I enjoy the way you discuss things, Ein...and please do not drop this conversation if you do not understand my position completely. I do want to explain it so that you understand everything I am saying. And of course, I want to give you as much time to question the logic of my position. (It helps me!)

Thank you.

I must admit I am genuinely confused by your argument.

I encourage you to try to construct an argument that invivisible incorporal tails do not exist though, I'm almost willing to bet you'll come up with the argument I tried to make against the existence of gods on this forum a while ago.

0 Replies

How is the fight going?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Approximately how much confidence do you have in the guess that you do not have an invisible tail?

Quite a bit. I am convinced by the evidence I have before me that Bin simply made up a hypothetical solely for the purposes of testing my agnosticism.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
I HONESTLY do not know...and considering the evidence available...I have trouble with people who guess in either direction and then make a big thing of that guess...because it might just as well be based on a coin toss.

You have departed from the position I perceive as most common among agnostics, that in the absence of evidence all plausible hypotheses are equally likely.

How so?

Where have I said that in the absence of evidence, all plausible hypotheses are equally likely?

MIND YOU that by asking that question, I am not saying that in the absence of evidence, all plausible hypotheses are equally likely. But that is a discussion for another time.

Quote:

Yet while you are prepared to make a guess that a pice of conjecture drawn out of the blue does not match up with reality, you evaluate the probability of the existence of gods to be somewhere around 50 %, and refuse to guess. This you do without lending any weight to the testimony of believers, and without presenting any other evidence.

I honestly do not know what you are getting at here, Ein. I have studied religion...and atheism for over 40 years now...and had discussions and debates with theists and atheists both on the Internet and in newspapers.

What on Earth causes you to suppose I am being so shallow as not to consider such evidence as has been offered by either side?

Quote:

So, what makes gods more likely than some random piece of conjecture?
(you've tried to explain that later in your post, so no need to reply to this)

So why is this here?

Quote:

And why did you land on 50% as your evaluation of the probability?

Have I ever put it that way? If I have, I certainly do not remember doing so.

I have absolutely no problem conceiving of REALITY being a spiritual thing...as opposed to purely a material one.

I do not see any credible evidence for or against the existence of Gods...or any other answers for the REALITY...including some that we are not even capable of conceptualizing.

I fail to see how anyone can categorically discount ANY concept of what REALITY actually IS...and what its constituent parts are.

I do not conceive of this notion in terms of 50-50 or anything like that.

I SEE NO CREDIBLE, UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE IN EITHER DIRECTION...and both directions seem plausible to me.

What is so difficult about understanding that? It seems so very clear cut to me.

Quote:

You wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
The "possiblity of gods" as an explanation of REALITY...is not that obvious to me...not that obvious at all.

Would gods really explain anything?

Well, for many years, I would have answered your question with a loud "Absolutely not!" Gods are not needed to explain anything.

But of late...when I consider the that I seem to exist...that there is this thing called EXISTENCE...I am not willing to rule out the notion of goodness of some kind...as an explanation of my personal existence. (Not this God made me bullshit...but something deeper than that.)

This leaves me feeling like a supersized questionmark. Is it possible for you to explain what gods, or "something godlike" would explain?

Well...since I am convinced that I exist...and truly do not know if anyone or anything else does...ME BEING GOD would explain EVERYTHING.

What do you not understand about that?

Quote:

If you cant explain the explaining then I would venture this is just an emotional attachment, and not rational thought.

If you cannot understand the explanation...perhaps it has nothing to do with my ability to have rational thoughts...and nothing to do with any emotional attachments that I am dealing with...

...but rather, emotional attachments that you are not dealing with.

Perhaps!

Quote:

As far as I can tell we have a package of things which seem to exist, and I fail to see how adding "god" to the package helps explain why the package exists.

Well I can...and I have explained above how I see it. I don't know how to explain it any better.

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Although based on the evidence I have at my disposal...I think the notion of God...as expressed by the religions currently in fashion...is laughable.

This at least we can agree on.

Good. I was beginning to worry.

Quote:

I encourage you to try to construct an argument that invivisible incorporal tails do not exist though, I'm almost willing to bet you'll come up with the argument I tried to make against the existence of gods on this forum a while ago.

I was in a conversation with Bin...when suddenly, out of the blue, he posits the possibility of me having an invisible uncorporeal tail that somehow corporealates every 90 years.

It was an absurd notion...and I have categorically rejected it.

If you are suggesting that there is a 100% relationship between the spontaneous posit of the invisible tail...and the notion that one possible explanation of REALITY could involve a God or gods...

...please make that case...and then I will deal with it.

Short of that, I think I have done an adequate job of explaining myself.

On a personal note: Thanks for sticking with me and attempting to get this thing cleared up without some of the nonsense that was going on earlier. I truly appreciate it...even though I seem to be having as little success in making my case to you as to Bin.

0 Replies

Frank...check out the "Got a bible, check this out" thread...I wish for you to comment on a point I posted...

0 Replies

SmokingFire wrote:

Frank...check out the "Got a bible, check this out" thread...I wish for you to comment on a point I posted...

I've already responding in that thread, SF.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Approximately how much confidence do you have in the guess that you do not have an invisible tail?

Quite a bit. I am convinced by the evidence I have before me that Bin simply made up a hypothetical solely for the purposes of testing my agnosticism.

So, you have quite a bit of confidence in the guess that some random hypothetical, which do not contradict available evidence, does not coincide with reality. This is my possition also.

FrankApisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
I HONESTLY do not know...and considering the evidence available...I have trouble with people who guess in either direction and then make a big thing of that guess...because it might just as well be based on a coin toss.

You have departed from the position I perceive as most common among agnostics, that in the absence of evidence all plausible hypotheses are equally likely.

How so?

You have departed from this possition (the possition that all hypotheses not contradicted by evidence are equally likely) by considering one such hypothesis (your having an invisible tail) less likely than another. (the absence of such a tail)

Quote:

Where have I said that in the absence of evidence, all plausible hypotheses are equally likely?

You have not, you have taken a possition contradicting this one.

Quote:

MIND YOU that by asking that question, I am not saying that in the absence of evidence, all plausible hypotheses are equally likely. But that is a discussion for another time.

You are on record as saying that in the absence of evidence one plausible hyopothesis, that your tail is merely invisible and incorporal, can be and in deed is less likely than another, that you do not have a tail.

Quote:

Quote:
Yet while you are prepared to make a guess that a pice of conjecture drawn out of the blue does not match up with reality, you evaluate the probability of the existence of gods to be somewhere around 50 %, and refuse to guess. This you do without lending any weight to the testimony of believers, and without presenting any other evidence.

I honestly do not know what you are getting at here, Ein. I have studied religion...and atheism for over 40 years now...and had discussions and debates with theists and atheists both on the Internet and in newspapers.

What on Earth causes you to suppose I am being so shallow as not to consider such evidence as has been offered by either side?

I think you misunderstood this because you misread the bit above. What I'm getting at is that you consider the existence of god more likely than the existence of an invisible incorporal tail, without pointing to any evidence for or against on which does not also apply to the other.

Quote:

Quote:
So, what makes gods more likely than some random piece of conjecture?
(you've tried to explain that later in your post, so no need to reply to this)

So why is this here?

Rethorical, ended up that way after a lot of editing and moving.

Quote:

Quote:
And why did you land on 50% as your evaluation of the probability?

Have I ever put it that way? If I have, I certainly do not remember doing so.

You likened the probabilities to that of a cointoss. I'm also guessing that if you thought one possibility signifficantly more likely than the other you'ld venture a guess.

Quote:

I have absolutely no problem conceiving of REALITY being a spiritual thing...as opposed to purely a material one.

I do not see any credible evidence for or against the existence of Gods...or any other answers for the REALITY...including some that we are not even capable of conceptualizing.

I fail to see how anyone can categorically discount ANY concept of what REALITY actually IS...and what its constituent parts are.

But you are prepared to venture guesses that some concepts, like invisible tails, are not part of it.

Quote:

I do not conceive of this notion in terms of 50-50 or anything like that.

I SEE NO CREDIBLE, UNAMBIGUOUS EVIDENCE IN EITHER DIRECTION...and both directions seem plausible to me.

What is so difficult about understanding that? It seems so very clear cut to me.

Thing is, the same applies to invisible tails. Surely you do not mean to suggest that the chanses of such tails existing are less because Binny stumbled across the idea and used it as a rethorical device.

Quote:

Quote:
This leaves me feeling like a supersized questionmark. Is it possible for you to explain what gods, or "something godlike" would explain?

Well...since I am convinced that I exist...and truly do not know if anyone or anything else does...ME BEING GOD would explain EVERYTHING.

What do you not understand about that?

I'll get back to you once I figure out how I define "explain". I dont think a universal explanation explains anything at all, but untill I can nail down my definition that isn't getting us anywhere.

Quote:

Quote:
If you can't explain the explaining then I would venture this is just an emotional attachment, and not rational thought.

If you cannot understand the explanation...perhaps it has nothing to do with my ability to have rational thoughts...and nothing to do with any emotional attachments that I am dealing with...

...but rather, emotional attachments that you are not dealing with.

Perhaps!

Sure. Or the explanation could just not make sense. I think not being able to articulate ones own possition is more of a symptom of irrational thought than not understanding the possition of another.

Quote:

Quote:
As far as I can tell we have a package of things which seem to exist, and I fail to see how adding "god" to the package helps explain why the package exists.

Well I can...and I have explained above how I see it. I don't know how to explain it any better.

I guess we're stuck then. Looking forward to our next little tangle.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:
Although based on the evidence I have at my disposal...I think the notion of God...as expressed by the religions currently in fashion...is laughable.

This at least we can agree on.

Good. I was beginning to worry.

Quote:
I encourage you to try to construct an argument that invivisible incorporal tails do not exist though, I'm almost willing to bet you'll come up with the argument I tried to make against the existence of gods on this forum a while ago.

I was in a conversation with Bin...when suddenly, out of the blue, he posits the possibility of me having an invisible uncorporeal tail that somehow corporealates every 90 years.

It was an absurd notion...and I have categorically rejected it.

If you are suggesting that there is a 100% relationship between the spontaneous posit of the invisible tail...and the notion that one possible explanation of REALITY could involve a God or gods...

...please make that case...and then I will deal with it.

Short of that, I think I have done an adequate job of explaining myself.

I guess some people view the notion of gods as just such a spontanious notion as that of an invisible incorporeal tail. One that just happened to make a viable meme. The same applies to religious concepts such as the soul, which you have also declined to guess about on other threads. Perhaps we should explore this venue, we seem to have hit a dead end with gods.

You dismiss one notion offhand, yet give another the time of day.

Quote:

On a personal note: Thanks for sticking with me and attempting to get this thing cleared up without some of the nonsense that was going on earlier. I truly appreciate it...even though I seem to be having as little success in making my case to you as to Bin.

And I had a good time doing it too. It's getting late, I'll drop by tomorrow.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

On a personal note: Thanks for sticking with me and attempting to get this thing cleared up without some of the nonsense that was going on earlier. I truly appreciate it...even though I seem to be having as little success in making my case to you as to Bin.

Har har... claiming I am the one not sticking to the argument.

Frank Apisa wrote:

The only way you can logically assert it is "a fact"...is if you know it to be a fact.

If you do not know it to be a factstop asserting it to be a fact.and let's get on with this thing without this nonsense.

If you do not know it is a fact...then you do not know if there is a God or not.

In that case...we are in agreement on that point.

Let's decide whether we are in agreement or not.

Frank Apisa wrote:

So since those of us you are dealing with here are adults rather than kidsand since we are sober rather than juiced up

how about we deal with this for a bit.

'Splain to us, Binny, how you both "do not know"and "know" at the same time.

Then we will get to the other stuff.

You can answer this question as well as I can (which is not very well), since you assert things as facts that you do not know. But I will attempt to explain it as well as I can so we can move forward, you question interjector. But after I make a fool of myself trying to answer this very difficult question, and before we move on the questions you have put off until after I answer this one, I would like you to also make a fool of yourself trying to answer this question which is a very much more difficult question than "Is there a god?"

It is my opinion that I have ten toes. Look at that sentence really hard. You'll see that it assumes that my opinion REALLY IS that I have ten toes. This raises a question over levels of "me-ness". For instance, am I a very powerful being, that, just for fun, is having an experience of the mind... a dream... in which "I" refers to the "first person character" of the dream? So it seems to "me" that "I" can only be a relative term, somehow. Relative to what? Possibly relative to the image of reality collected in the thing "I" consider to be "my" brain (if what "I" have been taught can be believed, which is another assumption that would clearly be wrong outside the sphere of reality "I" believe to be collected in "my" brain).
People have made up the word fact. The following may be hard to follow, but let's try it. There are facts, in "my" opinion (of "my" opinion of "my" opinion of...). No fact can be justifyably known with certainty, in "my" opinion (of...) (not even the identity stuff I referred to before, like "I exist"). What I mean by that is, people can be very sure of themselves, unjustifiably, and be wrong. They can also be very sure of themselves, unjustifiably, and be right. I'll give examples of this upon request. So the latter possibly could be said to know a fact if we really are on the plane of me-ness we think we are. But not justifiably.
It is my opinion that we are on the plane of me-ness we think we are and that I am an example of this latter set of folks who know a fact, but do not justifiably know it.

And as hank williams jr puts it:

"And if you ain't into that, I don't give a DAaayamn!"

But now it's your turn to make a fool of yourself and answer your own question... HOW DO YOU KNOW SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ASSERT AS FACTS?

And then, please do move on to answer my previous (latter in the argument) questions. I've thought of making a generic post with these questions that I could just repeat after each of my posts, instead of constantly referencing them.

And also, I won't be replying till Friday, as I have finals the next 3 days. But I'll read.

0 Replies

binnyboy wrote:

But now it's your turn to make a fool of yourself and answer your own question... HOW DO YOU KNOW SOME OF THE THINGS YOU ASSERT AS FACTS?

I appreciate that you have just attempted to make a fool of yourself, Bin...and it is my opinion that you have succeeded marvelously. But then again, you had a built-in head-start.

In any case, the "explanation" you just offered isn't, in my opinion, sound enough to qualify as gibberish. But I thank you for taking the time to attempt to rationalize the unrationalizable. It was fun reading.

Nowsince you were working with a specific "something you asserted as a fact"please give me that same opportunity.

What specifically have I asserted as "a fact" that you are challenging me to explain how I know it to be a fact?

Once again...good luck with your exams.

0 Replies

Short version of my latest post:

I'm confused by your god explains things argument, and you can't explain it further, so lets try to apply the argument to souls instead.

You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

0 Replies

I believe any theory about a personal God that intervenes in events has logical problems. Augustinian and Tomistic philosophy do not view God in this manner.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Short version of my latest post:

I'm confused by your god explains things argument, and you can't explain it further, so lets try to apply the argument to souls instead.

You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

What makes you suppose I consider a soul to be likely?

0 Replies

And while you are at it...what makes you suppose I consider a God to be likely.

Because I consider one thing unlikely...for what I consider good and compelling reasons...does not perforce mean that I consider other things likely.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

It appears you missed the word more Frank. I take it that you consider souls more likely to exist than invisible tails since you express confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, yet refuse to do the same as it pertains to souls.

The notions of invisible tails and souls can both be adequatly explained as products of human imagination. Yet while you express great confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, you refuse to even venture a guess that souls do not exist, let alone exspress confidence in one. So, what makes the concept of souls warrant more consideration than the concept of invisible tails?

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

It appears you missed the word more Frank.

Not at all, Ein.

That, in fact, is why I appended the comment: "Because I consider one thing unlikely...for what I consider good and compelling reasons...does not perforce mean that I consider other things likely. "

If one does not consider a thing "likely"...it certainly cannot be said that he considers it "more likely" than something else...and certainly not "more likely" than something he does not consider likely at all.

But let me get on to the rest of your comments...and maybe this will become clearer to you.

[/quote] I take it that you consider souls more likely to exist than invisible tails since you express confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, yet refuse to do the same as it pertains to souls.

The notions of invisible tails and souls can both be adequatly explained as products of human imagination. Yet while you express great confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, you refuse to even venture a guess that souls do not exist, let alone exspress confidence in one. So, what makes the concept of souls warrant more consideration than the concept of invisible tails?[/quote]

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that the only "evidence" one should consider is visual evidence.

I have already explained several times that the reason I am confident in my guess about the "possible invisible tail which corporealates itself every 90 years" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the fact that I cannot see the tail...and that I cannot see that the tail is not there.

The evidence upon which I based my guess...is the way I got the information about it from Bin. It seems to me the notion of "the invisible tail" was something made up spontaneously on the spot.

In any case...I have absolutely no idea of whether or not "souls" exist (in any of the forms suggested for souls)...and I see absolutely no evidence which would pursuade me to make a guess that they exist or that they do not exist. For certain, the concept of souls is not something that came to me during an Internet conversation during the immediacy of debate.

I DO HAVE EVIDENCE which would persuade me to guess that I do not have an invisible tail that becomes visible every 90 years. IT AIN'T SOLID EVIDENCE...BUT IT IS EVIDENCE. And upon that evidence, I base my guess about it.

What on Earth is so difficult to understand about that?????

What evidence, Ein, do you (if you do) base your guess that there is no God...are no gods...are no souls?

What is your evidence that causes you to guess that those things should be excluded from the possible components of REALITY?

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Einherjar wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

It appears you missed the word more Frank.

Not at all, Ein.

That, in fact, is why I appended the comment: "Because I consider one thing unlikely...for what I consider good and compelling reasons...does not perforce mean that I consider other things likely. "

If one does not consider a thing "likely"...it certainly cannot be said that he considers it "more likely" than something else...and certainly not "more likely" than something he does not consider likely at all.

I wold not consider it likely that a man randomly picking balls from a bag containing 95 black balls and 5 othervise identical red balls, mixed, should pick two red balls before picking a single black one. I would still consider it to be more likely (identical to less unlikely) than that the same would happen if the man was picking balls from a bag containing 195 black balls and 5 red ones.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But let me get on to the rest of your comments...and maybe this will become clearer to you.

Einherjar wrote:
I take it that you consider souls more likely to exist than invisible tails since you express confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, yet refuse to do the same as it pertains to souls.

The notions of invisible tails and souls can both be adequatly explained as products of human imagination. Yet while you express great confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, you refuse to even venture a guess that souls do not exist, let alone exspress confidence in one. So, what makes the concept of souls warrant more consideration than the concept of invisible tails?

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that the only "evidence" one should consider is visual evidence.

Not at all.

Quote:

I have already explained several times that the reason I am confident in my guess about the "possible invisible tail which corporealates itself every 90 years" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the fact that I cannot see the tail...and that I cannot see that the tail is not there.

The evidence upon which I based my guess...is the way I got the information about it from Bin. It seems to me the notion of "the invisible tail" was something made up spontaneously on the spot.

Does this mean that you consider the testimony of those who belive in souls, that somehow somewhere sometime somebody came up with the idea of souls based on evidence, to be credible? Credible enough to change your position, from what would have been offhand dismissal had the concept been presented to you under the same circumstances under which you ran into the invisible tail concept, to the uncertainty you now exibit?

Quote:

In any case...I have absolutely no idea of whether or not "souls" exist (in any of the forms suggested for souls)...and I see absolutely no evidence which would persuade me to make a guess that they exist or that they do not exist. For certain, the concept of souls is not something that came to me during an Internet conversation during the immediacy of debate.

Do you think then that the concept originated with someone who had evidence to back it up? I am almost certain that if this concept had not been presented to ancient men, someone would have thought of it, and it would still have spread as a meme. I would predict that that this concept, or one just like it, would have been in play wether evidence supporting it was at some point available to someone or not. Therefore i do not consider that this concept is being distributed compelling evidence in favor of it being real.

Quote:

I DO HAVE EVIDENCE which would persuade me to guess that I do not have an invisible tail that becomes visible every 90 years. IT AIN'T SOLID EVIDENCE...BUT IT IS EVIDENCE. And upon that evidence, I base my guess about it.

Surely you are not proposing that concepts thought up for the purpouse of making an argument are less likely to correspond with reality than concepts not thought up at all. That binny made this concept up in the middle of a debate does not constitute evidence against the existence of invisible tails, it merely invalidates his testimony as evidence in favor of it.

Quote:

What on Earth is so difficult to understand about that?????

The bit where invisible tails are less likely (more unlikely) to exist than souls or say invisible horns, just because binny happened to stumble across the idea while trying to make something up to liken to the notion of god.

Quote:

What evidence, Ein, do you (if you do) base your guess that there is no God...are no gods...are no souls?

The same evidence on which you base your guess that there are no invisible tails, namely the lack of credible evidence to support the notion. (as well as the complexity of the notion itself)

Quote:

What is your evidence that causes you to guess that those things should be excluded from the possible components of REALITY?

Not excluded from possible components, just considered farfetched and unlikely.

0 Replies

Einherjar wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
Einherjar wrote:
You have expressed confidence in a guess that one random hypothetical which do not contradict observed evidence, that of invisible incorporeal tails, does not coincidentally happen to be real. Yet with regards to another hypothetical, that of an invisible incorporeal brain of some sort, a soul, you will not make such a guess. It appears you consider a soul more likely than an invisible tail, why?

It appears you missed the word more Frank.

Not at all, Ein.

That, in fact, is why I appended the comment: "Because I consider one thing unlikely...for what I consider good and compelling reasons...does not perforce mean that I consider other things likely. "

If one does not consider a thing "likely"...it certainly cannot be said that he considers it "more likely" than something else...and certainly not "more likely" than something he does not consider likely at all.

I wold not consider it likely that a man randomly picking balls from a bag containing 95 black balls and 5 othervise identical red balls, mixed, should pick two red balls before picking a single black one. I would still consider it to be more likely (identical to less unlikely) than that the same would happen if the man was picking balls from a bag containing 195 black balls and 5 red ones.

So would I...and so would any sane person.

So what?

What does that possibly have to do with this?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
But let me get on to the rest of your comments...and maybe this will become clearer to you.

Einherjar wrote:
I take it that you consider souls more likely to exist than invisible tails since you express confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, yet refuse to do the same as it pertains to souls.

The notions of invisible tails and souls can both be adequatly explained as products of human imagination. Yet while you express great confidence in your guess that invisible tails do not exist, you refuse to even venture a guess that souls do not exist, let alone exspress confidence in one. So, what makes the concept of souls warrant more consideration than the concept of invisible tails?

You seem to be stuck in the mindset that the only "evidence" one should consider is visual evidence.

Not at all.

Well it sure seems that way.

Quote:

Quote:
I have already explained several times that the reason I am confident in my guess about the "possible invisible tail which corporealates itself every 90 years" has absolutely nothing whatever to do with the fact that I cannot see the tail...and that I cannot see that the tail is not there.

The evidence upon which I based my guess...is the way I got the information about it from Bin. It seems to me the notion of "the invisible tail" was something made up spontaneously on the spot.

Does this mean that you consider the testimony of those who belive in souls, that somehow somewhere sometime somebody came up with the idea of souls based on evidence, to be credible?

I have no idea of how the notion of souls came into being...and although I, like you, suspect it may have been made up out of whole cloth...the bottom line is that the "soul notion" did not come to me the way the "invisible tail" notion did...and that is all I have to work with.

In my mind, I do not have evidence to guess that souls can be eliminated as a possible component of REALITY...but I do have evidence to guess that "the invisible tail" can be.

Quote:

Quote:
In any case...I have absolutely no idea of whether or not "souls" exist (in any of the forms suggested for souls)...and I see absolutely no evidence which would persuade me to make a guess that they exist or that they do not exist. For certain, the concept of souls is not something that came to me during an Internet conversation during the immediacy of debate.

Do you think then that the concept originated with someone who had evidence to back it up?

I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO IDEA OF HOW THE NOTION OF SOULS ORIGINATED...but I have a fairly decent idea of how the notion of my having (or not having) an invisible tail did.

WHY CAN YOU NOT UNDERSTAND THAT??????????????????????????????????????????

Quote:

I am almost certain that if this concept had not been presented to ancient men, someone would have thought of it, and it would still have spread as a meme. I would predict that that this concept, or one just like it, would have been in play wether evidence supporting it was at some point available to someone or not. Therefore i do not consider that this concept is being distributed compelling evidence in favor of it being real.

I am not proposing there is evidence in favor of it being real.

Quote:

Quote:
What evidence, Ein, do you (if you do) base your guess that there is no God...are no gods...are no souls?

The same evidence on which you base your guess that there are no invisible tails, namely the lack of credible evidence to support the notion. (as well as the complexity of the notion itself)

Well that is just plain dishonest. At no point have I ever asserted that the reason I am willing to guess I have no invisible tail is because of a lack of credible evidence to support the notion....AND YOU DAMN WELL KNOW THAT.

That was a piece of pure fiction...and a strawman through to its core.

It is obvious to me, Ein, that you have decided there are no gods just as arbitrarily as the theists have decided there is a God...and you are simply not willing to honestly consider alternatives to that arbitrary decision.

The rationalizations that go into your defenses are not, in my mind, especially different from the rationalizations theists bring to debate in defense of theirs.

Not sure why an intelligent individual like you would do that...but, you gotta live with your decisions, not me.

0 Replies

In the mood for a fight? I am!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know