Frank, I can logically say "there is no god." It's up to you to prove me wrong.
Setanta
I see you got sucked back !
...but you see even I as an atheist "understand" the concept of "god" as a worldview that others cannot "escape" from because for example they cannot tolerate "nowhere to go" or "nowhere to be". So neither they, nor we atheists can resort to "logic" because logic is about only about validity and not "truth" which is individually tested against against the worldview of each observer...
...strong suction !!
Obviously the atheists in this discussion are too much like the theists with whom I discuss this issue to ever expect them to drop their silly belief system.
What can I say?
The theists are too wedded to their belief system to drop it also -- and it is almost as silly as the atheistic belief system -- so I guess we've got to call this a "cannot resolve."
In the meantime, it is heartening to know there are lots of out there who ARE willing to acknowledge that they don't know if gods exist or if gods do not exist -- and are intelligent enough to see that the evidence for both sides of that issue is virtually non-existent.
And we can each derive as much enjoyment from these interactions as we can -- knowing full well that the issue will not be resolved.
cicerone imposter wrote:Frank, I can logically say "there is no god." It's up to you to prove me wrong.
And I can say "I don't think you know whether there are gods or not" -- and now it is up to you to prove me wrong!
I'm waiting.
Wrong. When I say something doesn't exist, you can't get away from reasking the question. I made a straight statement. When you say, "I don't think you know," you're the one that quesitoning my statement, so you're the one that must prove "I don't think you know." Here's another statement for you: I know that my wife does not live on the moon. You can't come back and say, "I don't think you know....." Yes, I know, because you can't prove she's not on the moon.
Quote:Hoever, the conept of g-d is a completely separate thing from, say, Jesus. One can deny the existance of christ but not the general concept of g-d (being immaterial and undefined), and that is agnostic.
Agnostic isn't even a position on the theist/atheist continuum. *EVERYONE* is theist/atheist and *EVERYONE* is gnostic/agnostic. They deal with completely different aspects of belief and knowledge. Saying someone is agnostic or atheist only gives half the picture.
Frank Apisa wrote:My argument with Setanta had to do with his comment "There are no gods or goddesses."
Then if that is your only problem, stop painting with a broad brush and saying *ALL* atheists are religious because of the claims of *ONE* atheist.
Thank you.
cicerone imposter wrote:
Quote:Wrong. When I say something doesn't exist, you can't get away from reasking the question. I made a straight statement. When you say, "I don't think you know," you're the one that quesitoning my statement, so you're the one that must prove "I don't think you know." Here's another statement for you: I know that my wife does not live on the moon. You can't come back and say, "I don't think you know....." Yes, I know, because you can't prove she's not on the moon.
It has nothing to do with how others respond to what you say.
You simply cannot say (know) something (god) doesn't exist because you can't look every where simultaneously. The statement, "God does not exist"
.is pure guessing.
It's not something one can know. That's why atheism is considered a belief just like theism.
Although I don't think ALL claims of knowledge of a god's existence are based in mere belief.
God
Quote:Frank, I can logically say "there is no god." It's up to you to prove me wrong
Actually, when someone makes an absolute statement such as "there is no god" or "ESP exists", etc...that person has the burdon of proof. Its not up to us to prove you wrong. You have to prove your case.
To respond to Frank's response to my post a couple of days ago....I do not disagree with your beliefs. I respect the pure agnostic position of having no opinion one way or the other about the existence of a God. I think you are being perfectly logical.
I only begin to disagree with you when you claim that everyone who does have an opinion one way or the other is being ILLOGICAL. I have an "opinion" that God doesnt exist. But I do not state "there is no God"
My position is not illogical.
Greg
Cephus wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:My argument with Setanta had to do with his comment "There are no gods or goddesses."
Then if that is your only problem, stop painting with a broad brush and saying *ALL* atheists are religious because of the claims of *ONE* atheist.
Thank you.
I have never said that -- and you really should stop misquoting people in order to argue against your misquote.
cicerone imposter wrote:Wrong. When I say something doesn't exist, you can't get away from reasking the question. I made a straight statement. When you say, "I don't think you know," you're the one that quesitoning my statement, so you're the one that must prove "I don't think you know." Here's another statement for you: I know that my wife does not live on the moon. You can't come back and say, "I don't think you know....." Yes, I know, because you can't prove she's not on the moon.
No, you are wrong in your reasoning here, ci.
Well, Fresco, my point is that this is a discussion which does not benefit from "logic chopping." The terms here are actually rather specific. Does atheism have the same logical flaws as religion? I answer no to that question, because religion, as distinct from simply a silly argument about the nature of reality and it's perception, has a very specific, detailed and absolute conception of what constitutes a deity. I avoided the use of the term anthropomorphic, because one could adduce religions for which there is a god, which is not anthropomorphic. However, i was stirred by what Edgar had said, and i am stipulating that "religion," the topic here, does indeed make use of a human construct, the description of which is fantastical, and the rejection of which is an entirely different category of statement form the assertion that such a deity does exist. The "you cannot know" nonsense just gets sillier and sillier, and eventually ends up in a rejection of the ability to "know" anything. Here, specifically, the question is not whether or not the statement that a deity exists and the statement that one does not exist have the same logical flaws, but whether or not religion and atheism have the same logical flaws.
In saying any contention of the existence of a sentient, independent and eternal being, omnipotent to disregard the laws of a universe which said being is alleged to have created, one is simply rejecting an anthropocentric and puerile statement descending among humans since time immemorial, and likely having derived from the glibness of shamans who took authority, and a free ride, from providing pat answers to the deepest questions of existence. I'm not going to go throught the chartruse colo-rectal surgeons inhabiting Ganymede routinge again--suffice it to say that what i have posited as the "common human concept" of a deity admits to being rejected both on the face of the concept, as well as for having provided no evidence. In so doing, i'm not attempting to play any logical games, because i haven't the least expectation of convincing anyone with strongly held views--i'm not out to win anything here. I will continue to deny as specious arguments based solely upon a resort to "logical" abstracts, because, as you've noted, and i agree with you, this is not a topic in which logic has ever had a brief. Absent any more plausible description of a deity, with a reasonable expectation that the contention can be demonstrated, then i'll say there are no gods or goddesses, or rather, there are no such gods or goddesses. I went to the trouble that i did to try to imagine a universal description of what a deity is, to religion as opposed to simply what someone might be clever enough to describe, because the text of the question does not concern itself with rhetorical devices, or evidentiary possibilities, but with religion.
Taken to an extreme, seeing this as a question to which logic does not apply answers the thread's question, with no, there are no logical flaws in either position, as logic is inapplicable. However, when it is posited that such a deity exists as is commonly understood in religion, then that statement and the rejection thereof are not equivalent theses.
Frank Apisa wrote:You can logically say: I do not believe in gods.
You can logically say: I believe there are no gods.
That's been the bulk of my argument, so I'm glad to hear you agree with it.
Frank Apisa wrote:But the moment assertions are made without the caveat of "belief"(which is to say without the caveat of "this is a guess" -- a line has been crossed which enters the realm of ILLOGIC.
Insofar as anyone asserts that there are no gods -- especially if they are basing that assertion on the fact that the cartoon god of the Bible seems absurdly unlikely -- they are being ILLOGICAL.
I see that as a strange explanation of illogical. In my arguments, by logical I have always meant "based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions." According to that your deduction here is false. Possible doesn't mean reasonable by any stretch, and logical doesn't mean unquestionable.
I'd still like you to answer the following question... I will continue to ask it if you ignore it again, because unless you explain your views on this I see it as impossible to engage in any sort of reasonable debate with you about an undefined thing:
Monger wrote:But if the argument you invented against yourself was adapted to, "Supposing there MIGHT be gods is as LOGICAL as supposing there MIGHT be purple accountants on Saturn's moons," well, you haven't made any case against that.
While there're more believers in god than aliens on Saturn, I think you agree that alone says nothing about any sense in the claim.
So what sense DO you see in the claim? If "theists haven't got a leg to stand on," as you've said before, then why do you feel the existence of gods is more plausible than the existence of other religious/spiritual concoctions (such as spirits living in the moon)?
If you ever change your mind and say you believe there's evidence of gods/goddesses (whether I accept the evidence or not), or if you ever show why their existence is a plausible idea (rather than *possible*) even without any supporting evidence, I'll stop comparing your argument to having an open mind about spirits living in the moon & purple businessmen on Saturn.
By the way, I have no intention of comparing a belief in god to a belief in unknown things within the realm of science, such as aliens. (Since we're capable of looking at Saturn's moons to look for people, I've been assuming the accountants would be supernatural/immaterial or some such
)
I've said I don't believe in god (guess/estimate/whatever -- I personally don't feel it's important to put this caveat in front of every opinion). I've never said it's impossible that gods could exist. I've never spoken of unquestionable proof against god, only of the logic, probability & sense involved in such claims. To steal a line from you, apparently I am not capable of explaining such to you in a convincing way -- but that doesn't make any of it any less true.
Frank,
Are you agnostic about who your dad is?
Are you agnostic about whether you are straight or gay?
Are you agnostic about whether you are real or an illusion?
When Setanta said that there is an element to this discussion that will simply lead us to the quote Ican uses in his signature ("Certainty is impossible and probability suffices to govern belief and action. Get over it!") he is spot on.
Setanta
I agree with your "strictly logical" non-equivalence.
As an aside...Intellectual theists in fact have several modes of existence for "God" including "a non-interventionist" mode which would of course be immune from the gathering of "evidence". It would not surprise me either if such theists viewed "logical thought" as a "divine gift" which is incapable of analysing its origins !
Re: God
skeptic wrote: I only begin to disagree with you when you claim that everyone who does have an opinion one way or the other is being ILLOGICAL. I have an "opinion" that God doesnt exist. But I do not state "there is no God"
My position is not illogical.
Greg
Greg, I have never ever said anything like that -- and I most certainly do not feel that way at all.
You are misreading what I am saying.
Please discuss this with me further.
Setanta wrote:The "you cannot know" nonsense just gets sillier and sillier, and eventually ends up in a rejection of the ability to "know" anything. Here, specifically, the question is not whether or not the statement that a deity exists and the statement that one does not exist have the same logical flaws, but whether or not religion and atheism have the same logical flaws.
Actually, Setanta, the thing that is getting sillier and sillier is your argument that agnosticsim is silly.
Something else that is getting sillier and sillier is your frantic attempt to justify making a blanket statement about REALITY without truly knowing what reality is. You are trying to pass off a guess about REALITY -- as knowledge about reality -- and there are very few things sillier than that.
Monger wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:You can logically say: I do not believe in gods.
You can logically say: I believe there are no gods.
That's been the bulk of my argument, so I'm glad to hear you agree with it.
Frank Apisa wrote:But the moment assertions are made without the caveat of "belief"(which is to say without the caveat of "this is a guess" -- a line has been crossed which enters the realm of ILLOGIC.
Insofar as anyone asserts that there are no gods -- especially if they are basing that assertion on the fact that the cartoon god of the Bible seems absurdly unlikely -- they are being ILLOGICAL.
I see that as a strange explanation of illogical. In my arguments, by logical I have always meant "based on earlier or otherwise known statements, events, or conditions." According to that your deduction here is false. Possible doesn't mean reasonable by any stretch, and logical doesn't mean unquestionable.
I'm having some trouble understanding what you are getting at here, Monger, but I stand by my statement completely exactly as presented.
Quote:I'd still like you to answer the following question... I will continue to ask it if you ignore it again, because unless you explain your views on this I see it as impossible to engage in any sort of reasonable debate with you about an undefined thing:
Monger wrote:But if the argument you invented against yourself was adapted to, "Supposing there MIGHT be gods is as LOGICAL as supposing there MIGHT be purple accountants on Saturn's moons," well, you haven't made any case against that.
While there're more believers in god than aliens on Saturn, I think you agree that alone says nothing about any sense in the claim.
So what sense DO you see in the claim? If "theists haven't got a leg to stand on," as you've said before, then why do you feel the existence of gods is more plausible than the existence of other religious/spiritual concoctions (such as spirits living in the moon)?
If you ever change your mind and say you believe there's evidence of gods/goddesses (whether I accept the evidence or not), or if you ever show why their existence is a plausible idea (rather than *possible*) even without any supporting evidence, I'll stop comparing your argument to having an open mind about spirits living in the moon & purple businessmen on Saturn.
By the way, I have no intention of comparing a belief in god to a belief in unknown things within the realm of science, such as aliens. (Since we're capable of looking at Saturn's moons to look for people, I've been assuming the accountants would be supernatural/immaterial or some such
)
Monger, if you read your "question" you will see that it is a very difficult "question" to comprehend -- and it is clouded by the fact that you are trying to present arguments at the same time as you are presenting your question.
Ask me a specific question -- or several -- and I will definitely respond.
Quote:I've said I don't believe in god (guess/estimate/whatever -- I personally don't feel it's important to put this caveat in front of every opinion). I've never said it's impossible that gods could exist. I've never spoken of unquestionable proof against god, only of the logic, probability & sense involved in such claims. To steal a line from you, apparently I am not capable of explaining such to you in a convincing way -- but that doesn't make any of it any less true.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that Setanta stated "There are no gods or goddesses?"
I never said you claimed it was impossible that gods could exist -- but with his insistence, Setanta is.
Why are you mixing up apples and oranges?
Frank Apisa wrote:I'm having some trouble understanding what you are getting at here, Monger, but I stand by my statement completely exactly as presented.
What I'm getting at is that a belief there are no gods is based on logic (you've also stated as much), and a belief there are gods isn't.
If you agree, we can discuss why relying on logic is important in the analysis of an undefined thing. If you disagree, please answer the question below.
Frank Apisa wrote:Monger, if you read your "question" you will see that it is a very difficult "question" to comprehend -- and it is clouded by the fact that you are trying to present arguments at the same time as you are presenting your question.
Ask me a specific question -- or several -- and I will definitely respond.
I'd bolded my questions. Here they are:
Monger wrote:What sense do you see in the claim? [I'm guessing you'll say "none," which I agree with but theists obviously don't.] If "theists haven't got a leg to stand on," as you've said before, then why do you feel the existence of gods is more plausible than the existence of other religious/spiritual concoctions (such as spirits living in the moon)?
Frank Apisa wrote:Quote:I've said I don't believe in god...I've never said it's impossible that gods could exist. I've never spoken of unquestionable proof against god, only of the logic, probability & sense involved in such claims.
What does any of that have to do with the fact that Setanta stated "There are no gods or goddesses?"
Nothing at all. It's was just a recap of my argument.
Monger wrote:What I'm getting at is that a belief there are no gods is based on logic (you've also stated as much), and a belief there are gods isn't.
The problem is that Frank is talking about generic gods. There are no generic gods. There is no such thing as a generic god, there are only specific, well-described gods that man has invented for himself. As such, we can evaluate those gods, find that they are logically impossible and reject them safely and logically. Once we realize that *ALL* gods are simply things that man has invented for himself, then we can safely say that there are no real gods, since they are simply creations of the human mind.
Does that mean that somewhere out there, there might not be something godlike hiding in the shadows? Nope, but why worry about it unless it shows up and makes itself known?
