Okay...let's see...where was I...

Lola how about a picture today out of the window?

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

the forecast is for scattered t-storms........so if it rains, we'll just take cover for a while and then the sun will come out again.........

I would bet high odds on it, though Frank might correctly object that I am in no position to know.

0 Replies

Frank said to Thomas

Quote:

It also is becoming painfully obvious that you do not have the integrity to simply acknowledge all this....and let it go at that.

Ouch

0 Replies

odds are 50% today
30% for Friday, Saturday and Sunday
10% Monday and Tuesday
20% Wednesday and Thursday
and 60% next Friday and Saturday

so yes, but still, scattered actually does mean scattered. It rains for a while and then it stops.....that's the way it goes with t-storms and I oughta know.........

Husker......pix coming up

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Quote:

Perhaps you overgeneralize, because this atheist happens to think that statements about goddess's existence are so meaningless they aren't even wrong. Probably my first disagreement with the two of you is that you rank "too meaningless to be even wrong" as closer to "true" than "false", while I rank it beyond "false" -- even farther from "true" than "false". Assuming that disagreement can be resolved by agreeing on some meaning for the word "god", my next disagreement is the one about the meaninglessness of certainty. I find it meaningless to ask my chances of living forever are exactly zero or 0.0000000001 percent, because I have no way of asking the question in practice. For all I can ask questions about, I will die. The same logic applies to unicorns and gods.

Okay, I think I'm seeing your position better, now. You're saying that, since we can't ever know, we might as well declare the answer as 'no' and move on. Am I characterizing you correctly?

If so, I strongly disagree. One of the great "quests" of life is the search for a higher power. On this quest, we have theists, who say "Oh, I found him, but he's invisible"; we have agnostics saying "we haven't found jack. what are you people smoking? We'd better keep looking"; and we have atheists, who say "yeah, what are you smoking? We've never found any evidence, so he doesn't exist."

Then we have your somewhat unique position, which is saying "We haven't found anything, we probably never will...let's just say he doesn't exist and go home; It's pointless to keep looking." Again, if I'm incorrect as to your position, let me know, but I see this as a defeatist one. It's essentially giving up and coming up with a quick, meaningless answer to justify it.

Perhaps you could explain further how you came to this conclusion. I look forward to your response.

0 Replies

photos out the window

here

0 Replies

Tal....

...that does not seem to be Thomas' postion at all. It is probably closer to Lola's...although Lola changes that aspect of her personal philosophy from time to time.

Thomas is saying that he can estimate the probability that a god exists....and that the probability is so great against it....essentially it equals zero.

We have theists in A2K....Ican comes to mind...who assert that they can estimate the probability that no god exists....and that the probability is so great against it....essentially it equals zero.

If Thomas were actually saying what you suppose...

"We haven't found anything, we probably never will...let's just say he doesn't exist and go home; It's pointless to keep looking."...

it would make MUCH MORE SENSE to say "....we do not know if a god exists....and go home."

But as I said....what you suppose IS NOT what Thomas is saying.

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

Okay, I think I'm seeing your position better, now. You're saying that, since we can't ever know, we might as well declare the answer as 'no' and move on. Am I characterizing you correctly?

Not really, but it's closer than your last attempt. I am really taking two complimentary positions. 1) God is an undefined, meaningless concept; I say she doesn't exist for the same reasons I say that shomfuts, gringots, and snollers don't exist, rather than being agnostic about them It's just what we do by default when we encounter a meaningless concept. 2) Contrary to what Frank appears to imply, there is a lot of ground between "absolute certainty" and "just a guess". Just because Frank has refuted that I have absolute certainty about the non-existence of god, he hasn't proven that I am just guessing wildly.

0 Replies

Quote:

Okay, I think I'm seeing your position better, now. You're saying that, since we can't ever know, we might as well declare the answer as 'no' and move on. Am I characterizing you correctly?

Really you guys, are we not picking nits? Of course we don't know absolutely. We don't know, for instance that water is composed of 2 parts hydrogen and one part oxygen absolutely either......there are only varying degrees of certainty for us humans here on earth......so after saying that........yes, I agree god damn it that we don't know absolutely.....and since that's true, we're all going on what we believe (one cannot have no opinion). If I were betting, and I am, I suppose I don't hesitate one little bit to say that I don't think so. I so don't think so, that I'll go about my life with a sense of certainty until proven otherwise. And I'll live my life accordingly.......as we all do.

Some of us want to believe in God more than others. We all ignore reality to some degree. I believe there is no God as much as I believe water is H2O..........and that's certain enough for me.

0 Replies

Quote:

Just because Frank has refuted that I have absolute certainty about the non-existence of god, he hasn't proven that I am just guessing wildly.

Good point, Thomas........isn't it nice to be on the same side of the argument for a change?

0 Replies

Quote:

Again, if I'm incorrect as to your position, let me know, but I see this as a defeatist one.

It 's only defeatist if you want to believe in God. If you're content to recognize that it doesn't really matter.....then it's only practical.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

Quote:
Just because Frank has refuted that I have absolute certainty about the non-existence of god, he hasn't proven that I am just guessing wildly.

Good point, Thomas........isn't it nice to be on the same side of the argument for a change?

It is. But as joefromchicago put it when he and I were in a similar situation, "I remain optimistic that we can reach a mutually satisfactory disagreement."

0 Replies

Thomas: Okay, thanks for the clarification. I'll agree that people's definition of "God" is as varied as people are...but for the sake of argument, let's define it as "Creator Of Man", since that's one of the main conundrums of existence. Having established that (tenatively), can you tell me what evidence you've found that makes God's non-existence more probable? Thanks.

0 Replies

The nonsense just gets loonier . . . you start from a premise of a fairy tale being who creates mankind, and insist that someone else disprove it' existence5?

Jeeze, i'm gettin' too old for this . . .

0 Replies

me too

0 Replies

Taliesin181 wrote:

but for the sake of argument, let's define it as "Creator Of Man", since that's one of the main conundrums of existence.

Fine. Then by your ideosyncratic definition, "god" means "natural selection", that being what created man.

Taliesin181 wrote:

Having established that (tenatively), can you tell me what evidence you've found that makes God's non-existence more probable? Thanks.

I can tell you that by your ideosyncratic definition of "god", the fossil record, the evolution of antibiotics-resistant bacteria, the evolution of black moths from grey moths in the London Underground, and thousands of similar observation establish a very high probability that "god" does exist. But I doubt that conceding that means very much. All it means is that defining "god" to mean "natural selection" is ideosyncratic and arbitrary.

0 Replies

Tal...

...Thomas and Lola both want to assert that because we cannot know almost anything to a certainty...that means their guesses about the true nature of REALITY has to be something other than a guess.

Just about the only arguments for the non-existence of gods I have heard from any atheist so far are variations on the theme: I do not see any gods; and there is no evidence that there are any gods.

The bring the tooth fairy, Santa Claus, purple CPA's working on a moon of Saturn and all that other bullshyt into the discussion....mostly because they have absolutely no foundation for their assertion that there are no gods.

The bottom line for me is: I do not know the true nature of REALITY and I cannot logically exclude the possibility that a GOD is involved. (I may be that GOD...and not be aware of it.)

I do not have enough unambiguous evidence available to me to make a meaningful guess about the issue....so I decline to do so.

MY GUESS IS THAT NEITHER THOMAS NOR LOLA are in a significantly different position from me on that matter.

To me, acknowledging this boils down to a question of honestly, integrity, and guts...which the atheists here involved are not showing.

In any case, there are folks who have asserted that the atheistic position is somehow a superior philosophical position when compared with agnosticism.

It isn't. In fact, compared with agnosticism on the issue of the true nature of REALITY....atheism can't even hold the agnostic jock strap.

If you would like to discuss this further....I can assure you I am ready and willing to do so.

0 Replies

Thomas wrote:

Taliesin181 wrote:
but for the sake of argument, let's define it as "Creator Of Man", since that's one of the main conundrums of existence.

Fine. Then by your ideosyncratic definition, "god" means "natural selection", that being what created man.

Taliesin181 wrote:
Having established that (tenatively), can you tell me what evidence you've found that makes God's non-existence more probable? Thanks.

I can tell you that by your ideosyncratic definition of "god", the fossil record, the evolution of antibiotics-resistant bacteria, the evolution of black moths from grey moths in the London Underground, and thousands of similar observation establish a very high probability that "god" does exist. But I doubt that conceding that means very much. All it means is that defining "god" to mean "natural selection" is ideosyncratic and arbitrary.

Even this is bullshyt, Tal....as I am sure you already realize.

There is absolutely nothing to prevent a GOD from existing and from "creating man" in a way completely compatible with the fossil records currently available.

0 Replies

Sorry for getting ad hominem with you Frank, but I do rather like Blatham's label "the only evangelical agnostic I've ever met." Smile

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

The nonsense just gets loonier . . . you start from a premise of a fairy tale being who creates mankind, and insist that someone else disprove it' existence5?

Jeeze, i'm gettin' too old for this . . .

I certainly am not asking anyone to "disprove" anything.

Thomas and Lola are both asserting that there are no gods.

I do not know if there are gods involved in REALITY or not.

We are discussing that.

0 Replies

Okay...let's see...where was I...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know